Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Shiv Pratap And Others – Petitioner
Versus
The Board Of Revenue U.P. At Allahabad And Others – Respondents
WRIT -B No. -3040 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Bimla Prasad, Jitendra Kumar Ravat, Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Shivani Chaudhary
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Azad Rai, Jitendra Kumar, Rajnath Yadav

The court upheld the trial court's finding that the unregistered will deed was forged, affirming the ancestral property rights of both sons as co-tenure holders.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Section 229-B - Suit for declaration of co-tenure holder - The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring him as co-tenure holder, which was upheld by the appellate authorities - The unregistered will deed was found to be forged and fictitious, thus not valid - The property in question was determined to be ancestral, entitling both sons to equal shares. (Paras 3, 10, 11)

(B) Findings of fact - The trial court's findings regarding the nature of the will and the ancestral property were upheld by the appellate courts, indicating no illegality in the judgments. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The suit was filed by Indrasen for declaration as co-tenure holder of ancestral property against the petitioners, who claimed rights based on an unregistered will deed allegedly executed by their father. The trial court found the will to be forged.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's decree was upheld by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, confirming the plaintiff's rights as co-tenure holder.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the unregistered will deed and the determination of ancestral property rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the unregistered will deed was forged, and the ancestral nature of the property entitled both sons to equal shares, affirming the trial court's findings.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1.Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners today, is taken on record.

2.Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 9, Mr. Azad Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.8-Gaon Sabha and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the Ceavator/ respondent No.6.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit under Section 229-B of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred as to U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act) was filed at the instance of Respondent No.6 before Sub Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur in respect to plot of Khata Nos. 107 and 158 situated in Mauja-Karmon, Pargana, Hathgaon, Tehsil Khaga, District Fatehpur impleading State, petitioners and others as defendant. Defendant filed their written statement denying plaint allegation. The issues were framed in the aforementioned suit and parties were permitted to lead their evidence in support of their cases. The parties adduced their evidences accordingly. Trial Court/ Sub Divisional Officer, Fatehpur-respondent No.3 vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2021 decreed the planitiff's suit in respect of plot in dispute declaring plaintiff (Indrasen) be recorded along with legal heirs of Chandrasen as Co-tenure holder/bhumidhar with transferable rights. Against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2021 defendants filed an appeal under Section 331 (3) of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner vide order dated 21.04.2022. Second Appeal filed by petitioner under Section 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act was heard and dismissed by Board of Revenue vide Judgment dated 10.07.2023. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 in Case Number 811 of 2022 (Computerized Case Number C202102000000811) Ram Pratap and others vs Indrasen and others contained as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2021 passed by respondent No.3 in Case Number RST/31/2007-08 (Computerized Case Number T200802250324) Indrasen and others vs State of U.P. and others contained as Annexure 3 to this writ petition.

(IV) Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act filed by Plaintiff Indrasen was not maintainable as an unregistered will deed was executed in favour of Chandrasen (father of petitioners ) on 12.09.2002 by Jiyalal. He further submitted that unregistered will deed executed on 12.09.2002 was not cancelled by any court as such suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff Indrasen. He further submitted that plaintiff Indraseen is not in the possession of the plot in dispute as such suit under section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act was not maintainable. He further submitted that in the mutation proceeding, the name of Chandrasen was ordered to be recorded in the revenue record on the basis of unregistered will deed in question. He further submitted that judgment and decree passed by trial court / First appellate court/ Second appellate court are illegal as such same are liable to be set aside and plaintiff's suit be dismissed.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Counsel for responde