Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. BHAGWAN DEVI versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. ALLAHABAD & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Bhagwan Devi v. Board Of Revenue U.P. Allahabad & Others - WRIT - B No. 18757 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7476 (6 April 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Saha,J

Kanhai Ram was the tenure holder of the property in dispute. Bhagwan Devi the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act claming to have succeeded on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Kanhai Ram. It appears that there were also other claimants, namely Ram Nath respondent no.2 who claimed on the basis of inheritance and Narayan Swaroop who clamed being adopted son of Kanhai Ram. They also filed suits. The petitioners' suit as well as the suit of the respondents 2 and 3 were dismissed and it was held that the property in dispute in absence of any heirs vests in the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed on 4.4.05 by the Addl. Commissioner. The second appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on 3.1.06 by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue however allowed the appeal of Ram Nath who claimed on the basis of inheritance and has remanded the case. The finding recorded by the courts below is that the Will relied upon by the petitioner was not proved. The Will in question is said to be an unregistered one. Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the petitioner is not directly related to the deceased tenureholder. The trial court discussed the evidence on the record including the statement of the witnesses of the petitioner and recorded a finding that the Will was surrounded by suspicious  circumstances, which have not been explained and material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses were also found.  The findings have been affirmed by the appellate court and by the IInd appellate court. The finding that the Will is not proved is a finding of fact. No ground of interference has been made out. Dismissed.

Dt6.4.06sm

Wp18757/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.