Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH
Hausla – Appellant
Versus
Ram Ashish – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Ms. Atiya Abid, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Moti Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the contesting private respondent no.1.
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the judgment dated 15.12.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) whereby it allowed the revision preferred by the private respondent no.1 and set aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 18.05.1972 as a result the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 31.07.1970 was maintained.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, certain germane facts are being noticed first. The dispute between the parties relates to Khata No.12 of village Baranpur, Pargana Birhar, Tahsil Tanda (now Ambedkar Nagar), District Faizabad (now Ayodhya).
4. Upon commencement of consolidation operations in the village, the private respondent no.1 Ram Ashish through his guardian Chetu filed his objections under Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the ground that the property in question belonged to Algoo. Upon his death, his share devolved
Non-compliance with evidentiary standards in determining legitimacy of adoption leads to reversal of findings regarding inheritance and property rights.
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.
The absence of a formal marriage document does not negate other evidence of marital status.
The Consolidation Authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption, and their findings on crucial issues do not warrant any interference.
It is worthy to note that on the death of a female bhumidhar succession to holding goes not to her heirs but to "nearest surviving heir of the last male bhumidhar". In other words it is the heirs of ....
The court upheld the Deputy Director's finding that Jaikaran was not proven to be the son of Jorai, affecting the inheritance claims of his alleged sons.
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 unregistered adoption deed executed before the 1977 amendment does not invalidate the adoption, and presumption of compliance with the Act applies unless disproved.
Court upheld findings of lower authorities stating that the inability to prove family partition and validity of respondents' title under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prevailed, e....
The court affirmed the concurrent findings regarding co-tenancy rights and ancestral property, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.
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
