Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Ved Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
1. Heard Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 7 and Mr. R.C. Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plot in dispute belonged to Ganpat, son of Hari Ram, resident of village Rudhauli, Tappa, Padhiya, Pargana Basti Purab, Tehsil and District Basti. Ganpat executed an unregistered will deed in favour of petitioners as well as Om Prakash son of Thakur on 19.2.1973. Ganpat expired on 4.3.1973. Petitioners are the heirs of deceased Ganpat, being the real cousins. Petitioners filed an application for mutation under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, on the basis of will deed executed on 19.2.1973. In the aforementioned mutation proceeding, Lalit Ram and Others have filed the objection on the basis of the registered gift deed, alleged to be executed on 8.5.1970 by Ganpat in their favour. Second objection was filed by Kashi Prasad and others and third set of objection was filed by Govind Saran, on the basis of agreement to sale executed by Ganpat in their favour and 4th set of objection was filed by Smt.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to civil suits for declaration of rights.
Mutation proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act do not confer title and are subject to the outcome of civil suits regarding property rights.
The mutation application based on an unchallenged sale deed cannot be dismissed in summary proceedings, affirming the Board of Revenue's review authority under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
The interpretation of Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian Evidence Act and the precedent set by the Apex Court regarding the admissibility of subsequent oral agreements to modify will deeds.
Writ petitions against mutation orders are maintainable if they violate natural justice or are issued without jurisdiction, reaffirming the need for proper procedural adherence in land revenue matter....
Complicated inheritance disputes regarding land rights should be resolved through regular civil suits, not summary mutation proceedings, as determined under applicable land laws.
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not decide substantive rights, thus a writ petition is not maintainable.
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
