SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Pradeep Saxena, Advocate
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

IMPORTANT POINT
If a Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances, Propounder is required to remove suspicious circumstance.

Headnote:(A) Succession Act, 1925—Section 63—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 68—Proof of Will— If Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances, Propounder is required to remove suspicious circumstance—Propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that Will was signed by testator, that testator at relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood nature and effect of dispositions and put his signature to document of his own free will—Ordinarily when evidence adduced in support of Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove sound and disposing state of testator’s mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of Propounder. (Para 11)

       (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.

JUDGMENT

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.











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top