Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Dukhi – Appellant
Versus
Hardeo – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Heard Sri Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri A.K. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed in 1977. Number of parties to litigation have expired and their legal heirs are already on record.
3. According to averments made in writ petition, the dispute relates to plots no. 506/2 and 492 appertaining to Khata No. 176 of Village Khadesar, Pargana Zahoorabad, District Ghazipur.
4. In the basic year names of petitioners were recorded exclusively. Hardeo, Barsati and Dwarika, original-respondents no. 1 to 3, filed objections on the ground that these plots were ancestral property and originally belongs to one Dhanu and all parties belongs to same ancestor. Objections were opposed by original petitioners that they were in long possession of plots in dispute for last 22 years and were recorded as occupants.
5. Consolidation Officer allowed objection of contesting-respondents with regard to plot no. 506/2 and dismissed objection with regard to other plots including plot no. 492.
6. Original petitioners as well as original respond
Continuity of occupancy and ancestral ties substantiate rightful claims to land; absence of legal basis in assertions of sole ownership invalidates challenges.
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 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 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....
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of 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.
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
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
