Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Ashok Kumar (In-Person) And Ors. – Petitioner
versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation Barabanki And Ors. – Respondent
WRIT - B No. - 290 of 2019
Decided on : 10-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for record of heirs due to death. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. dispute concerning land and its ancestral claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. context of family lineage and claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 11) |
| 4. rejection of claims in consolidation proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. essential ingredients for establishing co-tenancy. (Para 18 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. evidence needed to establish property identity in co-tenancy. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. failure to demonstrate property’s identity. (Para 32 , 33) |
| 8. dismissal of the petition and costs. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Ref:- C.M.A. Nos. 25 and 26 of 2024
1. The aforesaid applications have been moved by the petitioners to bring on record the heirs of deceased respondent no. 5 who is reported to have died on 20.05.2020.
2. Having considered the aforesaid application as well as its accompanying affidavit wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner did not have the knowledge regarding the death of respondent no. 5 but only when the office report dated 09.01.2024 was recorded in the order of this Court dated 21.02.2024 that the petitioner became aware and thereafter the application has been moved.
3. Having considered the aforesaid application and the ground shown therein, this Court finds that there is no legal impediment in allowing the application, moreover, the record also indicates that the notices were issued to the proposed legal heirs and despite the service being sufficient as indicated in the office report dated 22.08.2024, no objections have been filed, hence, the application is allowed and the petitioner who appears in person shall carry out the necessary amendment in the array of parties.
On merit/petition.
4. The dispute in question relate to Plot Nos. 416, 472, 427, 336, 425, 426 and 780 situate in Gram Mathura Pargana Bhituali, Tehsil Fatehpur District Barabanki.
5. As per the petitioner, the original plots bearing No. 396, 403, 404, 421, 422, 429, 439, 440 and 450 total 9 plots measuring 3.26 hectares was recorded as Sirdari plots in Fasli year 1363 to 1365 in the revenue records which were of the common ancestor of the petitioners and the private respondents namely Nankau who was granted the said property in 1359 Fasli.
6. Since the said plots were near the river, accordingly on account of alluvial and diluvial action of the river, the said land on many occasions used to be submerged. The said plots are currently bearing Plot numbers as mentioned above.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that the property as indicated above belonged to Nankau who had three sons namely Ram Deen, Ram Charan and Atma Ram.
8. It is also stated that after the death of Nankau, the aforesaid property devolved on his three sons, each having1/3rd share. Ram Deen was survived by his only son Hari and the petitioners are all sons of Hari belonging to the branch of Ram Deen.
9. Sri Ram Charan was survived by his son Bhola who is the private respondent no. 4. Whereas children of the third son, namely Atma Ram, are the private respondents no. 5 to 10.
10. It is also the case of the petitioners that Bhola was a clever person and he with the connivance of the Revenue Authorities got his name mutated in respect of the share relating to Ram Deen and accordingly usurped the rights of the present petitioners.
11. Since, Hari was in service and did not reside in the village, accordingly, he was not aware of the revenue entries which were manipulated by Bhola.
12. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioners staking their claim initially instituted a suit seeking declaration of their rights under Section 229 -B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, however, the same could not be taken to its logical conclusion as the Consolidation operations commenced in the village and as a consequence, the declaratory suit pending before the Revenue Court abated in terms of Section 5 (2) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act,
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property 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
