Back
JASPREET SINGH
Rebai – Appellant
Versus
Jairaji – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents in both the connected writ petitions. Accordingly, noticing that the petition is of the year 1978 and is listed under the head that 'the cases shall not adjourned', the Court has proceeded to hear learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. During the pendency of proceedings, several parties have died and an application for substitution was moved by the petitioner and the legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the parties as they were originally impleaded in the writ petition.
4. The property in question relates to Khata No.279 situate in Sukkhapur, Etaura, District-Ayodhya. The said property was recorded in the name of the petitioner in the basic year Khatauni. Smt. Jairaji the private respondent had filed objections claiming share in the property in question. The other private respondents, namely, respondent Nos.2 to 6 sought a right of co-tenancy and they too filed their objections under Section 9(A)(2) of the
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 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 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 for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate 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.
To establish co-tenancy rights in ancestral property, claimants must prove the unbroken identity of the holding over time, which the petitioners failed to do.
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 lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
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
