Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Sudhaker – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girish Kumar holding brief of Sri Jai Pal Singh learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.
2. The petitioners before this Court have laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 19.01.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C) whereby two revisions, one preferred by respondent no.2 (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) and the other revision filed by the petitioner no.1, which were clubbed were decided by a common judgment and as a consequence, the revision preferred by the respondent no.2 was allowed and the revision of the petitioner no.1 was dismissed.
3. During pendency of the instant writ petition the private respondent nos.2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 had died and their legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, this Court shall refer to the parties as they were impleaded in the writ petition itself.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, certain facts leading up to this petition are being notice
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 lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.
Claims of co-tenancy require proof of continuous identity of property in the name of a common ancestor; failure to establish this results in dismissal.
Point of law : There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that property is a joint family....
A recorded tenant's consent is essential for an unrecorded co-tenant to acquire Bhumidhari rights; absence of such consent invalidates claims to ownership.
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 ....
To establish co-tenancy rights, it must be shown that property has come down intact from a common ancestor without change in identity.
To establish co-tenancy rights in ancestral property, claimants must prove the unbroken identity of the holding over time, which the petitioners failed to do.
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.
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
