Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Shikshawati v. Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut & Others - WRIT - C No. 514 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 421 (8 January 2007)


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).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 514 of 2007      

Smt. Shikshawati                


Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others


Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri S. C. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner.

This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 34 of U. P. Land Revenue Act.

Facts are that on death of recorded tenure holder Smt. Sureshwati, application filed by petitioner (daughter-in-law of deceased) was allowed vide order dated 20.2.1991. Subsequently, respondent no. 4, son of deceased, moved an application to recall the same which was allowed vide order dated 4.12.1992. Tehsildar finding that Smt. Surehwati was educated lady and used to make signature disbelieved the ''Will' produced by petitioner in her favour which bore thumb impression and directed mutation of name of respondents no. 4 and 5, sons of deceased on the basis of inheritance. Appeal as well as revision filed by petitioner challenging the said order was dismissed by appellate court as well as revisional court.

All the three courts found that petitioner failed to establish ''Will' which was the basis of her claim and directed mutation of name of respondents no. 4 and 4 on the basis of inheritance.

In view of the findings of fact recorded by all three courts below, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.

Even otherwise, writ petition challenging the mutation proceedings are normally not to be entertained in as much as proceedings are summary in nature and always subject to final adjudication of title by competent court on regular side. Petitioner has remedy of getting her title adjudicated by filing a suit on regular side, if so advised.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no scope for interference in the impugned order. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.




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


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 |

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