High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Rajbahadur v. C.O.& Others - WRIT - B No. 2516 of 1980  RD-AH 8727 (1 May 2006)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2516 of 1980
Raj Bahadur Versus Consolidation Officer and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
List revised. No one appears for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition arising out of consolidation proceedings involves title dispute. The matter was decided by C.O I Mariahun, district Jaunpur on 28.10.1970 deciding objections under section 9-A (2) of U.P C.H. Act.
The cases were registered as Case No. 1266 and 1267. Objections were filed by original petitioner and some of the contesting respondents. Against the said judgment appeal No. 734 Raj Bahadur and others Versus Brahmdin, Appeal No. 886 Bhagwan Din Versus Musammat Jai Raji (who is daughter of Smt Rajwanti), Appeal No. 1564 Pachu Versus Brahmdin and others, Appeal No. 733 Raj Bahadur and others versus Brahmdin and others, Appeal No. 864 Brahmdin Versus Musammat Jai Raji and others, appeal No. 735 Raj Bahadur and others Versus Mussammat Jai Raji and others and Appeal No. 867 Brahamdin Versus Raj Bahadur and others were filed. S.O.C Jaunpur through judgment and order dated 4.4.1972, allowed the appeal No. 1564 and dismissed the other appeals. Against the said judgment and order two revisions i.e. Revision No. 1467 and Revision No. 1473 were filed and reference was also made (reference No. 139 of 75). Revisional Court/ D.D.C Jaunpur through judgment and order dated 10.12.1979, dismissed both the revisions and accepted the reference hence this writ petition.
The dispute mainly revolves around the agricultural land left behind by Shrimati Rajwanti widow of Talewant Singh. Dispute was also raised in respect of agricultural land transferred by Srinath son of Kamal Nath. Petitioner also claimed that Talewant Singh had executed some will in his favour.
Pedigree is given in the judgment of the revisional court on page 74 of the paper book and in the judgment of S.O.C on page 56 of the paper book and in the judgments of C.O at page 36. Shiv Murat , Shivarat and Gajadhar were three brothers. Original petitioner Raj Bahadur was son of Raghunath who was son of Shiv Murat. Brahmdin is a son of Shivarat and Talewant Singh was son of Gajadhar.
Learned counsel for Petitioner has argued that Talewant Singh died in the year 1926 and his widow Rajwanti died in the year 1964 and after the death of Rajwanti the property which she inherited from her husband devolved upon the sons of Shiv Murat as Shivarat had separated, or in any case upon the sons of Shiv Murat and Shivarat.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that property of Rajwanti will not devolve upon her daughter Jai Raji and courts below have wrongly held otherwise. Since before Zamindari Abolition till her death Rajwanti was recorded in the revenue records. Succession in the case of a woman holding an interest ( in agricultural land ) inherited as a widow before the date of vesting is provided under section 172(2) of U.P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act. If the case is covered by clause (a) (2), then devolution takes place in accordance with Section 174 among the heirs provided under section 174. Shrimati Rajwanti will inherit the property by virtue of clause (d) of the said Section. In the said section heirs of husband of the widow do not inherit the property of widow in any contingency. However, if the case is covered by clause (a) (i) or clause (b) of Section 172 (2) of the Act, then property will devolve upon the heirs of husband of the widow in accordance with Section 171 of the Act. Under section 171 (2) daughters are mentioned under clauses (c) and (d) and other relations are mentioned in subsequent clauses . Even under section 171, as it stood in the year 1964, when Shrimati Rajwanti died, daughters were preferential heirs in preference to father's brother or son of father's brother. Married daughter was mentioned under clause (g) and father's brother and son of father's brother were mentioned under clause ( r) and (s) of Section 171 (2).
As far as will is concerned, it has not been believed by any of the courts below. In any case there is absolutely no explanation as to why since 1976 till start of consolidation no claim was ever raised on the basis of alleged will of Talewant Singh. In the revenue records after the death of Talewant Singh the name of his widow continues.
As far as disputes in respect of land sold by Srinath situate in village Pitamber is concerned, reliance has been placed upon admission of Srinath to the effect that he had no concern in the property. This statement was given after transfer hence it was not admission. Under section 18 of Evidence Act certain statements are admission if other are made during the continuance of interest of the person making the statement.
Accordingly I do not find any merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.