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 present.

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 U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, two issues were to be adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer. One relating to the claim of Jairaji, who claimed to be the widow of Ram Asrey and was claiming half right in the property on the basis of succession; whereas private respondent Nos.2 to 6 were claiming the rights of co-tenancy. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues and while considering the issue No.1 regarding the status of Jairaji and as to whether she the widow of Ram Asrey had remarried and thus would not inherit. However, after leading evidence, it was held that Jairaji had remarried, hence, her objections came to be dismissed. Insofar as the private respondent Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, their objections claiming co-tenancy was allowed by means of the judgement dated 21.01.1974.

6. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed before the S.O.C. One bearing No.1197 was instituted by Rebai assailing the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby co-tenancy rights were granted to respondent Nos.2 to 6. The other appeal bearing No.1190 was filed by Jairaji, whereby her claim in the disputed Khata was turned down by the C.O. The S.O.C. after taking note of the evidence on record found that it could not be established that after the death of Ram Asrey, Smt. Jairaji had remarried and nor the custom of Ghar Baithawa form of marriage was proved. It was also noticed that Jairaji had started living with brother-in-law of Rebai, but the issue of re-marriage was proved. The S.O.C. noticed that since there was a custom of Ghar Baithawa in the community to which Jairaji belonged for inheritance, hence, it found that Smt. Jairaji would not fall within the category of widow of Ram Asrey. Hence, the appeal preferred by Jairaji bearing No.1190 was dismissed. However, the appeal preferred by Rabei bearing No.1197 was allowed and the claim of private respondent Nos.2 to 6 claiming co-tenancy was rejected.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, again two revisions came to be filed before D.D.C., Faizabad. Revision No.820 was filed by Smt. Jairaji, whereby the claim had been rejected by the C.O. and S.O.C. as upon remarriage Jairaji could not be treated as widow of Ram Asrey and another revision bearing No.821 was filed by private respondent Nos.2 to 6, whereby the claim of cotenancy was turned down by S.O.C. Both the revisions were heard and decided by the D.D.C. by means of its judgement dated 14.08.1978, allowing both the revisions. As a result, Smt. Jairaji was also given a right in the property treating her to be the widow of Ram Asrey and the revision preferred by private respondent Nos.2 to 6 was also allowed granting them the right of co-tenancy. It is in the aforesaid context that Rebai filed two w