Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Puranwasi – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)
1. Heard Sri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sharad Chand Singh, learned A.C.S.C. for State.
2. The dispute is related to plot No.85 being area of 00.35 and 86 being area of 1.36 of Khata Khatauni No.42 situated in village Manga Kodar Tappa Nagva Tikar Pargana Silhat, Tehsil Sadar, District Deoria.
3. In basic year, when consolidation proceeding commenced, the name of petitioner was recorded as a tenant holder.
4. The opposite party No.3 has filed objection before the Consolidation Officer claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share and also for partition by separation of chaks. It was claimed by original opposite party No.3-(Chhedi son of Khedu) and that Khedu was son of Phagu, however petitioner has disputed that Khedu and Puranwasi were not brother. Puranwasi was only son of Phagu.
5. In initial round, objection filed by respondents were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The appeal thereof was partly allowed and Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.2.1972 remitted the case to Consolidation Officer to decide afresh.
6. In second round of litigation, the Consolidation Officer has consid
The burden of proof in claims of co-tenancy rests on the claimant, and insufficient evidence can result in the rejection of such claims.
Continuity of occupancy and ancestral ties substantiate rightful claims to land; absence of legal basis in assertions of sole ownership invalidates challenges.
The burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.
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.
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 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.
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
Living together does not imply joint ownership of property; independent possession negates jointness.
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.
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
