ORDER :

DEEPAK KHOT, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 9.10.2025 (annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chattarpur, in Case No.1127/Appeal/2024, whereby the order dated 24.1.2025 (annexure P/5) passed by the S.D.O. Chhattarpur and order dated 11.11.2024 (annexure P/4) passed by the Tahsildar have been set aside.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for mutation has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of one deceased Deependra, which has been allowed vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Naib Tahsildar (annexure P/4). The said order was challenged by the respondent in First appeal, which was dismissed by order dated 24.1.2025 (annexure P-5). Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.1.2025, the respondent preferred second appeal, which was allowed by setting aside the orders dated 11.11.2024 and 24.1.2025, passed by the Naib Tahsildar and the S.D.O. respectively.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appellate court has decided the appeal beyond its jurisdiction. The question of succession is not to be decided by the revenue authorities, which is required to be decided by the civil court. The second appellate authority, while applying the provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') has held that wife and the surviving mother are equally entitled of the estate of deceased Deependra. Further, that the disputed plot had been purchased by deceased Deependra, which was his self-acquired property and governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956. It is observed that in Schedule appended to the Act of 1956, in list of Class I heirs entries of wife and mother find place, as Deependra died issueless. Thus, applying the analogy has quashed the orders holding that the plot be again recorded back in the name of deceased Deependra.

4. It is submitted that once the fact of death of the deceased has been recorded, then such land could not be recorded in the name of the deceased when surviving legal heirs were before the appellate authority. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no reason for the second appellate authority to delete the name of the petitioner from the revenue record, as even the analogy applied by the second appellate authority is accepted, then also the petitioner's name ought to have been recorded as one half shareholder of the disputed plot. Thus, the second appellate authority has committed grave error of law in recording the name of the deceased on the disputed plot in the revenue record.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings on the ground that there is a serious dispute of relationship of the petitioner as a wife of the deceased. The respondent being father has challenged the order on the ground that on the basis of marriage certificate, mutation could not have been recorded by the competent authority. It is submitted that the Allahabad High Court (Bench Lucknow) vide judgment dated 5.7.2024 in the case of Shruti Agnihotri Vs. Anand Kumar Shrivastava, in First Appeal No.239/2023, has held that there is no validity of the certificate of marriage issued by the Arya Samaj and, thus, any mutation done on the basis of such certificate is illegal and contrary to law. It is further submitted that marriage is also not believable because the petitioner is much older than deceased Deependra, and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The succession of a Hindu male is governed by section 8 of the Act of 1956 which provides us under :-

"8. General rules of succession in the case of males.―The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter:―

(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified