Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Hari Lal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim of ancestral rights by petitioners (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. contention regarding evidence and ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. challenge to the validity of petitioners' evidence (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's analysis of concurrent findings (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. recognition of authority's findings and decisions (Para 20 , 21) |
| 6. standard for issuing writ of certiorari (Para 22 , 23) |
| 7. final dismissal of the writ petition (Para 24) |
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Original petitioners were claiming their rights on being descendants of Jhagan, allegedly a brother of Satai, predecessor-in-interest of contesting-respondents. Claim of original petitioners was that Satai and Jhagan belong to one ancestor, namely, Hinchu and Maharaj Deen, whereas contesting-respondents have disputed the pedigree relied on by original petitioners that they belong to a family of another Maharaj Deen and not Maharaj Deen son of Hinchu. The pedigree relied on by petitioners is reproduced hereinafter:
fgUpw
egjkt nhu
lrbZ
ckcw yky
Bkdqjnhu
ea'kk
ekrknhu
lqD[kw
ijlkn
cfydju
vuUrh
yM+dh
ijxkl
f'ko oDl
lgk;
jke vkSrkj
lqUnj
f'ko Hkh[k
nslbZ
nw/korh
mQZ
dkSnbZ
dksykgy
f'k[k.Mh
e[kw
t
Court upheld findings of lower authorities stating that the inability to prove family partition and validity of respondents' title under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prevailed, e....
The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding co-tenancy rights and ancestral property, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.
Petitioners' failure to timely assert their land rights bars their claim under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
The court upheld that concurrent findings by lower authorities on land ownership are not to be disturbed unless proven perverse, emphasizing the need for solid evidence in claims over ancestral versu....
Continuity of occupancy and ancestral ties substantiate rightful claims to land; absence of legal basis in assertions of sole ownership invalidates challenges.
The presumption of joint family status persists until proven otherwise, with the burden of proof on the party asserting separation.
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
