Back
JASPREET SINGH
Sukhraj – Appellant
Versus
D. D. C. Faizabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
2. Under challenge is the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.06.1976 whereby the objections preferred by the private respondent seeking a claim of co-tenancy was allowed. The petitioners thereafter assailed the same in an appeal which also came to be partly allowed by means of judgment dated 22.06.1976 and further being aggrieved the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of order dated 21.03.1980.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders submits that the property in question is relating to Khata No. 262, situate in village Ashrafpur Bhuwa, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad, measuring 6 bighas, 5 biswa and 5 biswansi. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question was recorded in the name of Udit, son of Dukhi since the basic year. Upon commencement of consolidation operations in the village, the private respondent Raghuveer wh
The burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.
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 lies with petitioners to establish their lineage and co-tenancy rights, which they failed to do, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
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.
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....
The burden of proof in claims of co-tenancy rests on the claimant, and insufficient evidence can result in the rejection of such claims.
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.
Living together does not imply joint ownership of property; independent possession negates jointness.
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
