Back
MANISH KUMAR
Bipat – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 and Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the revisional order dated 9.2.1982 passed by Respondent No.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad under Section 48 of the the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1953').
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute is with regard to Khata No.85 Situated at Village Faridpur. The said property was acquired by the grand-father of the petitioner Late Lautan on the fresh settlement in his favour on Khata No.85 and the sole name of grand-father of the petitioner is recorded in the revenue record since the fasli year 1331.
4. It is further submitted that at the time of consolidation proceedings the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (after their demise during the pendency of the present writ petitioner theirs legal heirs have already been substituted so they may be addressed as respondents) had filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the
Living together does not imply joint ownership of property; independent possession negates jointness.
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 Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
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.
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 in claims of co-tenancy rests on the claimant, and insufficient evidence can result in the rejection of such claims.
The burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.
The court affirmed that the burden of proof for establishing a custom of marriage lies with the claimant, and the revisional authority cannot reappraise evidence unless a jurisdictional error is pres....
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
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
