Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Anil Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation Aydhya and Others – Respondents
Writ (B) No. 725 of 2024
Decided On : 25-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohammad Ehtesham Khan
For the Respondent: Mohiuddin Khan
Title to property cannot be established solely through affidavits or admissions; a Will must be proved according to statutory requirements.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 9-A(2) - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, which allowed objections regarding property ownership based on a contested Will. (Paras 3, 6, 24)
(B) Title Transfer - The court reiterated that title to property cannot pass merely by admission or affidavits, emphasizing the necessity of proving a Will as per statutory requirements. (Paras 18, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners claimed property rights based on a Will executed by a mentally infirm individual, which was contested by the private-respondent on grounds of fraud and lack of evidence. (Paras 4, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the findings of the Settlement Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation, affirming that the petitioners failed to substantiate their claims regarding the Will. (Paras 24)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Will and whether the petitioners could establish their title based on the affidavits presented. (Paras 17, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the Will, and the title could not be established merely through affidavits or admissions. (Paras 23, 24)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel has been accepted on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the private-respondent No. 3 is represented by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, Advocate.
3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya (for short ‘DDC’) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed affirming the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (for short ‘SOC’) as a result, the objections filed by the private-respondent No. 3 were allowed (originally filed by her mother Smt. Dashrath Dei, who expired during the proceedings before the SOC).
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the commencement of the consolidation operations, the property in dispute was initially recorded in the base year in the name of Basudev Singh (the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) and Dashrath Dei widow of Ram Lakhan Singh.
5. The contention is that the property in dispute belonged to Ram Lakhan Singh. Upon his death, the property had devolved on his son Makhdoom Singh. Makhdoom Singh is said to be mentally infirm and also suffered from disability of being deaf and dumb.
6. It is also the case that Makhdoom Singh had executed a Will bequeathing the property to his mother Dashrath Dei and his maternal uncle (Basudev Singh), the real brother of Dashrath Dei. On the basis of the Will, Basudev Singh had got his name mutated vide order dated 10.02.1984. The said order was never contested, however, while the village was in consolidation, Dashrath Dei had filed her objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ‘the Act of 1953’) stating that the name of Basudev Singh has been incorrectly entered and moreover it was also stated that Dashrath Dei had already executed a sale-deed in favour of her daughter Savitri Devi, therefore, the said property should be recorded in the name of Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi only.
7. This was contested by the petitioners, who claimed on the basis of the Will and a ground was taken that the mutation order dated 10.02.1984 categorically noticed that Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi had furnished two affidavits wherein it was admitted to them that Makhdoom Singh had executed a Will in favour of Dashrath Dei and Basudev Singh and in such circumstances, Dashrath Dei had her half share and the other half share was that of her brother Basudev Singh.
8. It is urged by the petitioners that these two affidavits were considered while passing the order, but the fact remains that during the entire proceedings either before the Consolidation Officer or before the SOC, while filing an appeal, it was never disputed by the private-respondent that Dashrath Dei had not filed the said affidavits in the proceedings.
9. It is further urged that a ground of fraud which was raised by the private-respondent was not substantiated and in a cursory manner, the order dated 10.02.1984 was set aside by allowing the appeal which is in derogation of the material on record and as such the SOC exceeded his jurisdiction while allowing the appeal.
10. It is further urged that the DDC also affirmed the said order without considering the import of the two affidavits filed by Dashrath Dei in her lifetime in the proceedings and as such on the basis of the admission of Dashrath Dei, she and her daughter were estopped from assailing the rights of the petitioners and by fling the said affidavits, it amounted to acquiescence and this aspect has not been considered or properly dealt by the DDC, hence, the impugned orders are bad and not sustainable in law.
11. Per contra, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel
