Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Asrey Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Mata Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jay Prakash Singh Vats, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State.
2. Under challenge is an order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the D.D.C. Pratapgarh rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners, as a consequence, the order passed by the S.O.C. dated 12.3.2019 has been affirmed, resultantly, the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in the disputed Khata has been turned down.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed Khata nos.419 and 396 situate in Gram Lauli Pokhtakham, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh are the subject matter of the controversy. It is stated that the petitioner and the private respondent no.4 were members of the joint Hindu family and the property is coming down in the family from the common ancestors. It is also urged that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the pedigree has been given. It is stated that in the base year Khatauni, the name of the petitioners alongwith that of the private respondent no.4 was recorded in the Khata No.419, however Khata No
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 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 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.
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.
To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.
The burden of proof in claims of co-tenancy rests on the claimant, and insufficient evidence can result in the rejection of such claims.
To establish co-tenancy rights, claimants must prove that the ancestral holdings have remained intact and unchanged; drastic changes negate such claims.
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
