ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
Sohan Lal —Petitioner
versus
Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bareilly & Ors. —Respondents
Writ - B No.50132 of 2015
Decided on 4.9.2015
(B) Succession Act, 1925—Section 63—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 68—Proof of Will—Suspicious circumstances—There may be cases in which execution of Will may be surrounded by suspicions circumstances—In such cases Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before document is accepted as last Will of testator—Presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make initial onus very heavy and unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as last Will of testator. (Para 11)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Saxena, for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 23.06.2003, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08.04.2011 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 12.09.2011, passed in the proceeding under Section 9- A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Stamp Reporter has reported delay of 3 years 265 days in filing the writ petition. Delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
3. Dispute is in respect of land of basic consolidation year khatas 20, 50, 51, 115 and 126 of village Barkapur, tahsil and district Bareilly, which was recorded in the name of Jhau son of Dilshukh. Smt. Ramkali (daughter of Jhau) (now represented by respondents-4 to 7) filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, for recording her name over the land in dispute, on the basis of sale deed dated 04.02.1986, allegedly executed by Jhau in her favour. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 19.12.1986 recorded her name over the land in dispute, on the basis of aforesaid sale deed.
4. Smt. Dallo (other daughter of Jhau) filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was allowed by Consolidation Officer by order dated 31.01.1987. Later on Smt Dallo filed an application dated 09.06.2003, withdrawing her objection. Consolidation Officer by order dated 23.06.2003, dismissed the objection of Smt. Dallo as withdrawn and reinstated the order dated 19.12.1986.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a time barred appeal (registered as Appeal No. 245 of 2009-10) from the order dated 23.06.2003. It has been stated by the petitioner that his mother Dallo was residing with her father Jhau in village Barkapur as Jhau had no male issue. The petitioner was born at village Barkapur, at the house of his maternal grand father Jhau. After death of his maternal grand mother, his mother was looking after Jhau. Jhau executed a will dated 22.11.1984, before Public Notary, in respect of his entire movable and immovable properties and handed over it to his mother Smt. Dallo. The petitioner had no knowledge in respect of the will earlier as he had no talkative terms with his mother for quite long period. Jhau died on 15.05.1985 and never executed the alleged sale deed dated 04.02.1986 in favour of Smt. Ramkali. Smt. Ramkali procured a forged sale deed dated 04.02.1986 through some imposter and on its basis, she contested a case before Consolidation Officer from Smt. Dallo. During pendency of the litigation, Smt. Ramkali executed a sale deed dated 25.05.1999 in favour of her minor children, respondents-4 to 6. Later on his mother, Smt. Dallo withdrew her objection due to enticement of Smt. Ramkali. The consolidation Officer dismissed the objection of Smt. Dallo by order dated 23.06.2003 and mutated the names of respondents-4 to 6 in the revenue records on the basis of sale deed dated 25.05.1999. Respondents-4 to 6 later on executed sale deed in favour of respondents-7 and 8, who sold it to respondents-9 and 10, whose names have also been mutated. Smt. Dallo died on 02.11.2008. During her last days, the petitioner served his mother, ignoring previous differences. On 10.02.2009, due to heavy rain, water entered in box of the mother of the petitioner. Then the box was opened by the petitioner, in which he found the original will dated 22.11.1984. Then he got inspected the records of previous litigation and came to now about the order dated 23.06.2003. Then the appeal was filed on 06.03.2009. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 17.12.2009 condoned the delay and allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 23.06.2003.
6. Praveen Kumar Arora, (respondent-9) filed an application dated 07.08.2010 for recalling the order dated 17.12.2009, on the ground that the order was passed exparte without serving any notice upon him, which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.