Back
MANISH KUMAR
Ali Yaar Khan – Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Mateen – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manish Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the Basic Year Khatauni, which is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that he does not want to file any objection to the same.
4. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned revisional order dated 26.11.2002 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are grand son of Late Naseera Bibi who was daughter of Late Maddu Khan, the recorded tenure holder on Khata No.129.
6. It is further submitted that Maddu Khan had two children namely Naseera Bibi i.e. the grand mother of the present petitioners and Riyasat Khan.
7. It is further submitted that Riyasat Khan had left India in the year 1942 and started residing in Burma and he was issue-less. In the Basic Year Khatauni Khata No.129 which is shown to be entered in the name of Riyasat Khan S/o Late Maddu Kh
The court emphasized that succession rights must be established through concrete evidence, rejecting claims based on insufficient proof.
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.
Living together does not imply joint ownership of property; independent possession negates jointness.
The court held that succession rights require substantiated proof of parentage, emphasizing the need for reliable documentation in inheritance claims under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
The court ruled that title objections under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act must be decided on merit, emphasizing the need for proper jurisdiction and evidence rather than relying on alleged c....
The absence of a formal marriage document does not negate other evidence of marital status.
The Revisional Authority must provide sound reasoning when reversing lower court findings; mere admissions without corroborating evidence are insufficient to establish claims of ownership.
Compromise reached in consolidation matters prevails unless compelling evidence of illegality or misjudgment is presented; delayed appeals undermine procedural integrity.
It is worthy to note that on the death of a female bhumidhar succession to holding goes not to her heirs but to "nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of ....
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
