Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Agya Ram – Appellant
Versus
Joint Director Of Consolidation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri U.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mohd. Kashif Rafi and Shri Prakash Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of heirs of deceased respondent no.5 and Shri Pankaj Srivastava learned counsel for respondent no.7.
2. This judgement will decide Writ Petition No.4405 of 1985 ( Agya Ram and another Vs. Assistant Director Consolidation and others ) and connected Writ-B No.3396 of 1987 ( Chhotey Lal and another Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation and others ).
3. Since both the writ petitions assail the common order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and involve common facts and questions of law, hence both the petitions have been clubbed and are being decided by this common judgement. Since the petitions are pending since 1985 and 1987 and few of the parties have expired and their legal heirs have been brought on record, however for the sake of convenience, the court shall be referring to the parties as they were originally impleaded before the consolidation courts.
4. The dispute relates to Khata No.5 which is a bhumidhari Khata and Khata No.41 which is a Sirdari Khata,
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
Co-owners cannot claim adverse possession against each other; such possession must be open, hostile, and continuous, proven according to legal standards.
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 lies on the party asserting that property is joint family property, and mere existence of a joint family does not create a presumption of joint ownership.
Point of Law : A compromise having been filed before the Consolidation Officer, was not verified in terms of Rule 25A of the Rules of 1954, where it has been specifically provided that the Assistant ....
The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are ....
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
