Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Ram Dularey Singh And Others. - Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation And Others. - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 739 OF 1982.
Decided On : 09-05-2024
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the private respondents and Sri. Hemant Kumar Paney, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, after the demise of petitioner no. 1, his legal heir /representative has been substituted by Petitioner No. 1/1, after demise of Petitioner No.3 his legal heirs have been substituted by Petitioner No.3/1 and Petitioner No.3/2 and after the demise of Petitioner No.3/1 his legal heir has been substituted by petitioner No.3/1/1. Similarly after the demise of respondent nos. 5 and 8, their legal heirs have been substituted as 5/1 to 5/3 & 8/1 to 8/2 respectively, whereas Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have died issueless.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 3.2.1981 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the revisional order dated 16.01.1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Gata Nos. 210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 214, 215, 216, 248, 249, 250, 251 and 252/1 situated at Village - Pooremani, Pargana - Surajpur, Tehsil - Ramsanehi Ghat, District - Barabanki is under dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that initially the lease of Gata Nos. 123, 210, 211 and 251 was in favour of Sheo Charan Singh, who had expired in the year 1915. The petitioners are grandson of Sheo Charan Singh i.e. son of his eldest son Harnam Singh. The respondents are the great grandson of Sheo Charan Singh being son of Awadhraj, who was son of Markandey Singh and Markandey Singh was the second son of Sheo Charan Singh.
5. It is further submitted that after the demise of Sheo Charan Singh in the year 1915 the fresh lease was granted by the zamindar in favour of father of the petitioners Harnam Singh of Gata Nos.210, 211, 212/1, 212/2, 214, 215, 216, 248, 249, 250, 251 and 252/1 including Gata Nos. 210, 211 and 251 except Gata No. 123 which were initially leased in favour of Sheo Charan Singh. After a fresh lease executed in favour of Harnam Singh, the father of the petitioners, it could not be said to be ancestral property on the basis of which the respondents could claim their co-tenancy in the same.
6. It is further submitted that the holding had not come down and intact in the identical form it was resettled in favour of Late Harnam Singh the father of the petitioners.
7. It is further submitted that the finding given in the appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the respondents have co-tenancy right in Gata No.210, 211 and 251. The original gatas which were leased in favour of Sheo Charan Singh and also held that the respondents are having co-tenancy rights in Gata No.212/1, 212/2, 214, 215, 216, 248, 259, 250 and 252/1, newly leased in favour of the petitioners, as the same has been acquired from the ancestral property without their being any evidence that the newly leased gatas had been acquired out of the funds of ancestral property.
8. The revisional court without appreciating this submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners had affirmed the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, feeling aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed.
9. It is further submitted that after the demise of Sheo Charan Singh neither Markandey Singh nor Awadhraj Singh had never raised any claim on the said gatas newly settled with father of the petitioners as mentioned above, even after the resettlement in favour of Harnam Singh the ancestor of the petitioners, thus it is clear that the ancestors of the present respondents had never laid any claim in respect of the newly settled gatas consisting of 12 gatas.
10. It is further submitted that in other villages the petitioners had not raised any objection at the time of entry of names of the respondents in the revenue records but only in the present village it has b
To establish co-tenancy rights, it must be shown that property has come down intact from a common ancestor without change in identity.
To establish co-tenancy rights, claimants must prove that the ancestral holdings have remained intact and unchanged; drastic changes negate such claims.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
Claims of co-tenancy require proof of continuous identity of property in the name of a common ancestor; failure to establish this results in dismissal.
To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are ....
The onus of proving property as ancestral lies with the claimant, requiring evidence of purchase from Joint Hindu Family funds, not merely acceptance of a family tree.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
