Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.C. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Singh/ Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsels for the private respondents and Mr. P.S. Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents in both the petitions.
2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to chak No. 151 situated in Village Luduhi, Pargana-Ghosi, District Mau. The family pedigree of the parties is mentioned in paragraph No.6 of Writ B No. 2525 of 2024. The family pedigree demonstrate that one Charittar had four sons (Bindeshwar, Nageshwar, Muneshwar and Dhaneshwar) and one daughter (Shyam Dulari). The pedigree further demonstrate that Bindeshwar and Dhaneshwar died issueless. Nageshwar had died leaving behind his widow Pyari Devi and from the wedlock of Nageshwar and Pyari Devi, two daughters (Sharda and Sheela) were born. Sharda is private respondents in both the writ petitions. Muneshwar had died leaving behind his son Jitendra who is petitioner in both the writ petitions and Shyam Dulari died leaving behind her daughter (Shanti). During consolidation proceeding in the Village in question, C.H.
Succession rights under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are governed by principles of survivorship for heirs, as per Sections 171 and 175, validating joint succession claims.
Property inheritance claims based on will versus statutory succession are to be thoroughly assessed, considering criminal convictions affecting rights under the Hindu Succession Act.
The court affirmed the principle that title objections must be decided on merit rather than based on previous compromises, ensuring fair opportunity for parties to present evidence.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation exceeded jurisdiction by not considering the limitation and locus standi of the respondents in appeals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Substantial justice must be served in property succession cases, even if procedural irregularities exist, as per statutory provisions.
The Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to restore revisions for adjudication; adherence to procedural fairness and inclusion of all parties is mandated under the U.P. Consolidation of ....
The civil court's decree in an injunction suit cannot be enforced under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, affirming the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.
Succession rights for women under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act prioritize female heirs over husbands, as established in Sections 172 and 174.
Succession rights for female tenure holders are governed by Section 172 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, denying rights to husbands in such cases.
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
