Non-compliance with evidentiary standards in determining legitimacy of adoption leads to reversal of findings regarding inheritance and property rights.

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 on his two brothers, namely, Muneshwar and Jageshwar. Upon the death of Muneshwar, his share also devolved on Jageshwar. Upon the death of Jageshwar, Ram Ashish being his adopted son inherited the entire property and as such it was stated that his name alone should be recorded in so far as Khata No.12 is concerned.

5. However, in the base year Khatuani the said khata was recorded in the name of Hausala and Prabhawati. Prabhawati is said to be the daughter of Algoo and Hausala is said to be the son-in-law (Damad) of Smt. Phekaha and who is said to be the widow of Muneshwar.

6. Smt. Phekna and Hausala also filed their objections and they contested the claim of Ram Ashish on the ground that Ram Ashish was not the adopted son of Jageshwar. The case set up by Smt. Phekna and Hausala was that the property in question belonged to Panchu. Upon the death of Panchu, the property devolved on his three sons, namely, Algoo, Muneshwar and Jageshwar.

7. It was further stated that Algoo died first in point of time and as such his share devolved on his two brothers, namely, Muneshwar and Jageshwar. Thereafter, Muneshwar died and his share devolved on his widow Smt. Phekna. Smt. Phekna in her life time executed registered sale deed in favour of Hausala (her Damad) in respect of part of the property. Later, Jageshwar died on 01.07.1963 and as he was issueless thus the share of Jageshwar thereafter devolved on Smt. Phekna and in the aforesaid circumstances Smt. Phekna would be the exclusive tenure holder in respect of the property in question except to the extent of share which was sold by her to her own son-in-law Hausala.

8. The matter was contested before the Consolidation Officer who framed five issues. The dispute was crystallized before the Consolidation Officer and, inter alia, the major issue was whether Ram Ashish is the adopted son of Jageshwar and sole tenant or Smt. Phekna was the sole tenant and whether the land was acquired by Panchu. The Consolidation Officer vide his judgment dated 31.07.1970 recorded a finding the land in question was acquired by Panchu. Thereafter he went on to consider as to whether Ram Ashish was the adopted son of Jageshwar and he found that the adoption was duly proved and held Ram Asish to be the adopted son of Jageshwar. It wa