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


Sohbat v. D.D.C. & Others - WRIT - B No. 34197 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 15180 (1 September 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).


Court No.5.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34197 of 1993

Sohabat @ Sahbir       .........................   Petitioner


Deputy Director of Consolidation and others  .............. Respondents


Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

Jagesar and Tilkoo were two brothers. The petitioner Sohbat @ Sabhir, Dukkhi and Atwaroo are sons of Jagesar. Respondent no.6 Shiv Prasad is son of Dukkhi and respondent no.5 Paras is son of Atwaroo.  Jagesar and Tilkoo had some agricultural land. Tilkoo died and dispute relates to succession to his share. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the petitioner alleging that Tilkoo died issueless and they being his nearest heirs are entitled to succeed to his share. The case was contested by respondent no.4 Mangri. Her case is that she is the widow of Tilkoo.  The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding of fact that Mangri is the widow of Tilkoo and the petitioner's case that she is an impostor was not believed. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the revision also met with the same result in the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation. All these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

I have heard Sri Raghvendra Shanker counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the authorities below is perverse and is against the entry made in the parivar register. He submitted that PW 2 Patru who is sister's son of Tilkoo supported the case of the petitioner and PW1 Vishwanath  resident of village Lareva also supported the case that Mangri is not widow Tilkhoo.

The finding that Mangri is widow of Tilkoo was recorded on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. Respondent no.4 Mangri in proof of her case that she is widow of Tilkoo filed voter list of the year 1970 and extract of parivar register. She also examined witnesses. The petitioner in proof of his case filed copy of kutumb register of the year 1975 in which the name Mangri is not entered. The petitioner also filed copy of parivar register of village Lareva in which Mangari is shown as wife of one Gahnoo. The Settlement Officer considered this paper and did not find it reliable for reasons given by him in his order. The authorities below have considered the documents and the oral evidence filed by the parties and they recorded a finding of fact that Mangri is the widow of Tilkoo

The property in dispute is situate at Village Churamanpur. None of the witnesses of the said village were examined by the petitioner whereas respondent no.4 examined witnesses from the village Churamanpur and also filed voter list. The finding recorded by the authorities below are findings of fact. They are not vitiated by error of law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Dolgobinda Paricha Vs.Nimai Charan Misra and others [AIR 1959 SC 914 (V 48 C 129)] in which scope of Sections 50 and 60 of Evidence Act has been considered and the nature of evidence required to be led in proof of relationship has been laid down. The proposition laid down therein does not invalidate the findings in this case. The case cited is distinguishable on facts. The authorities below have considered the petitioner's witnesses and did not find them reliable. The respondent no.4 Mangri it was found was the widow and the finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of documentary evidence including voter list that she is widow of Tilkoo and oral evidence. The finding is of one of fact and is not vitiated by any error of law. Dismissed.

Dt. 01.09.2006



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.