Back
MANISH KUMAR
Phool Chand – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Dist. Ayodhya – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, who has filed the Caveat in the present writ petition.
2. This Court at the very beginning had asked learned counsel for the respondent that whether he wants to file any counter affidavit or is ready to argue the matter finally, he has submitted that he is ready to argue the matter finally without any counter affidavit.
3. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 08.01.2024 passed by respondent no. 1/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Ayodhya in Revision No. 424/2014530423000029 (Hari Prasad v. Ram Chet) relating to village Jarahi, Pargana Amsin, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the name of the petitioners have already been entered in the Khatauni of 1359 fasli and the petitioners have been in continuous possession of Khata Nos. 301 & 97.
5. It is further submitted that the second consolidation proceedings had started in 1980s and in the consolidation proceedi
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.
Living together does not imply joint ownership of property; independent possession negates jointness.
The burden of proof for exclusive property rights lies with the claimant, and mere entries in records are insufficient to establish ownership without supporting evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing evidence for claims of co-tenancy and inheritance, ruling that the Deputy Director's findings lacked sufficient support.
To establish co-tenancy rights, claimants must prove that the ancestral holdings have remained intact and unchanged; drastic changes negate such claims.
To establish co-tenancy rights in ancestral property, claimants must prove the unbroken identity of the holding over time, which the petitioners failed to do.
The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.
The burden of proof lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
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.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of 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
