Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5622 of 2018 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumari Pandey Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rashtrapati Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar Sharma
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Shekhar Sharma for the respondent no.4.
The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the land recorded in the name of one Vindhyavasini Pandey. Consequent to his death, an objection was filed by the respondent no.4, the widow of his pre-deceased son Suresh, claiming a share in the land.
The objection was contested on the ground that Vindhyavasini Pandey had executed a will in favour of two of his daughters- in-law, namely, Shyama Devi and Pyari Devi.
The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 05.07.2016 accepted the will and decided in favour of the petitioner, who claims through respondent no.9 in the petition.
The order passed by the Consolidation Officer, however, was reversed in appeal and the consequential revision has been dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the will allegedly executed in favour of Vindhyavasini Padey had been proved before the Consolidation Officer and in holding to be contrary, the courts below have committed manifest illegality.
Counsel for the respondent no.4 has supported the impugned order.
From the perusal of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, it transpires that one Munni Devi, the daughter of one of the marginal witness of the will, set up by the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, was produced to prove the will. Her statement was recorded on 26.02.2016. However, the will, which was sought to be proved was in fact brought on record on 13.06.2016, four months after the statement of Munni Devi had been recorded. It was therefore, found that the will has not been proved. Accordingly, the Settlement Officer Consolidation ordered that the land recorded in the name of the Vindhyavasini Pandey be recorded in the name of his successors including the respondent no.4, who was his daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased, son.
Even the revisional Court has recorded that the will, set up by the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, was, in view of what has been stated above, never proved.
Upon a consideration of the submissions made and upon a perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given for discarding the will, relied upon by the petitioner.
For the same reason, the orders impugned call for no interference, as they are perfectly correct and in accordance with law.
The writ petition therefore, fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 RKM