Back
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Binda Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasiya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lakhpatti, wife of Mahadev, was recorded tenure holder Arazi No.246 Area 0-11-1, 279 Area 0-6-0, 280 Area 0-14-10, and 281 Area 0-2-10. Total 4 plots Area 7-7-1. Lakhpati executed an unregistered will deed on 12.3.1996 in favour of Basanti, wife of Harihar Prasad, which was alleged to be registered subsequently on 16.11.2006. Two other unregistered will deeds alleged to have been executed by Lakhpatti in favour of Jai Prakash Jaiswal and Ravi Prakash Jaiswal. Lakhpatti died on 13.3.1996. The application under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act 1901 was filed on behalf of Basanti on the basis of unregistered will deed dated 12.3.1996. The aforementioned mutation application filed by Basanti was allowed vide order dated 12.3.1999. Against the order dated 12.3.1999, an application to recall the order dated 12.3.1999 was filed by Ravi Prakash Jaiswal on 24.5.1999. Jai Prakash J
Transfer applications require substantial evidence of bias; mere apprehension is insufficient for judicial intervention.
Delay in filing a mutation application raises doubts about its legitimacy, especially when previous claims have already been adjudicated and dismissed.
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.
Transfer applications must be based on genuine grounds; repeated applications causing undue delay in proceedings are unjustified.
The court reiterated that admissions in a written statement regarding property transactions create binding effects on claims of ownership, thereby restricting contesting rights based on previously es....
Mutation proceedings are summary and do not confer title; title must be established in a regular suit.
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.
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
