Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Ram Naresh – Appellant
Versus
D.D.C. Sultanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Pande, learned counsel for the private-respondents as well as Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel for the State.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 16.05.1988 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected and the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 02.01.1988 was affirmed, as a consequence, the claim of the petitioners claiming exclusive rights was rejected and the claim of the private-respondents claiming co-tenancy was upheld.
3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute relates to Khata No.202, situated in Village Vaidaha, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil and District Sultanpur, which stood recorded in the name of Ram Naresh, the original petitioner in the base year khatauni. Upon the commencement of consolidation operations in the village in question, the objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 were filed by the private-respondents claiming co
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.
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 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 burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.
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 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 lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial 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.
Dismissal of prior suit for maintainability does not determine current rights, and failure to consider evidence results in perverse findings necessitating remand for proper adjudication.
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
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
