Back
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Naresh – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Sultanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and 14 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.15 and Sri R.R. Upadhyay learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of private respondent no.7 on caveat.
2. Under challenge are the three orders passed by the Consolidation authorities dated 04.01.2006 passed by the Consolidation Officer whereby the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in Khata no.173 did not find favour and was rejected. This came to be assailed by the petitioners by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the S.O.C by means of the order dated 2.8.2008 which was further escalated before D.D.C but by means of the order dated 30.05.2024 the D.D.C dismissed the revision.
3. Assailing the three orders, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property-in-question was the ancestral property coming down in the hands of the petitioners from their forefathers namely Ganeshi.
4. It is also the case of the petitioners that their ancestor namely Chhedi had acquired the rights in the s
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 burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
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....
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.
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.
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 for exclusive property rights lies with the claimant, and mere entries in records are insufficient to establish ownership without supporting evidence.
To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.
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....
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
