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.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 07.11.1984 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur whereby it dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 09.04.1980 as a consequence the order passed by the Consolidation Officer has been affirmed.

3. The dispute relates to Khata No.624 of village Sevta, Pargana Kondri North, Tehsil Biswan, District Sitapur. Upon the commencement of the consolidation operation in the village in question, the petitioner filed their objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 claiming rights in the said Khata being the daughter of Bihari recorded tenure holderr. The claim of the petitioner was that the disputed property in question was recorded in the name of Bihari son of Raghubar. On his death, he was survived by his widow Hardai and the petitioner who are daughters inherited the same.

4. On the other hand, the private respondent no.2 Anant claimed himself to be the son of Bihari and stated that he had the right to succeed to be estate of his later father Bihari and in his presence the petitioners who are alleged to be the daughters of Bihari were not entitled to succeed and in this context the Consolidation Officer had committed an error in refusing the claim of the private respondent no.2 which was corrected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation when the appeal of the private respondent no.2 was allowed and the same has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the two orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has urged that Anant the private respondent no.2 was the son Chhedu and not son of Bihari.

6. It is further urged that in order to usurp the property, Anant got his name fradulantly incorporated showing himself to be son of Bihari. There were interpolation in the Parivar Register which has not been appropriately considered by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

7. It is further submitted that even the school certificate which was relating to the private respondent no.2 where he was said to be reading in class-5 was also not appropriately proved and by blindly relying upon such unauthenticated documents, the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error.

8. It is further urged that the private respondent no.2 while examining himself before the Consolidation Officer as witness could not establish his own parentage and this has not been noticed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation rather on the contrary have ignored vital piece of evidence which has resulted in recording a finding which is not supported by the material on record which has vitiated the judgment of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation, consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Per contra, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the private respondent no.2 has submitted that the petition is concluded by findings of fact and both the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have