Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 14061 of 2013 Petitioner :- Narayandas And Another Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kishor Gupta,B.N. Agrawal,Sanjay Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arimardan Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners.
The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 23.2.2013 and 13.8.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation setting-aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in a case registered under Section 9- A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
The facts of the case are that one Dhundha was the original tenure holder of the plots in dispute between the petitioners and respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3 is the daughter of Dhundha. After the death of Dhundha, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the disputed plots. While respondent no. 3 claimed succession being the daughter of Dhundha, the petitioners claim that before his death, Dhundha had executed an unregistered Will dated 2.8.1986 in their favour. The Will dated 2.8.1986 was produced by the petitioners in the courts below. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioners but the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have rejected the claim of the petitioners in the consequential appeal and revision filed before them. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the attesting witnesses to the Will were not able to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will. The aforesaid findings were recorded by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation after considering the testimony of the attesting witness Mohan Lal who was an attesting witness of the Will dated 2.8.1986 admitted in his cross-examination that the Will was not written before the death of Dhundha while the other attesting witness Munna Lal deposed that the Will was written on a stamp paper but the Will produced by the petitioners was written on a plain paper. In view of the aforesaid, the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his order dated 23.2.2013 rejected the Will and consequently the claim of the petitioners. The impugned orders dated 23.2.2013 and 13.8.2009 are based on evidence on record and there is no perversity in the said findings so as to occasion any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Satyam