Hon'ble A.P.Sahi - (1.) HEARD Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE undisputed pedigree between the parties is gainfully reproduced below: JUDGEMENT_378_ADJ6_2011Image1.jpg The agricultural holdings of Sohan Lal and Jhamman Lal are being cLalmed by the petitioner by virtue of succession under Section 171 read with Section 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 whereas the agricultural holdings of Sohan Lal and Jhamman Lal are being claimed by the respondent No. 1, the daughter of Sohan Lal, on the ground that she has inherited such property by virtue of a Will executed by Sohan Lal in favour of the respondent No. 1 and another Will executed by Smt. Chameli Devi in favour of the said respondent. The Will executed by Sohan Lal is dated 14.4.1985, which is unregistered, whereas the Will dated 15.7.1985 executed by Smt. Chameli Devi is a registered Will. The Consolidation Officer before whom the dispute was initially contested, found the Will set up by the respondent No. 1 to be proved, and accordingly issued directions for recording the name of the said respondent. On appeal, the same was reversed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in favour of the petitioner. A revision was filed by the respondent No. 1 and the revision has now been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, vide impugned order dated 4th March, 2011, upholding the order of the Consolidation Officer. Resultantly the petitioner has come up in this petition questioning the correctness of the orders passed against him.
(3.) SRI B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting the attention of the Court to the pedigree contends that the property has to pass on by inheritance to the petitioner, as the Wills set up by the respondent No. 1 do not stand proved, and no finding has been recorded either by the Consolidation Officer or by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in conformity with the provisions and the ingredients as prescribed under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with the provisions of Section 169 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the Wills set up by the respondent No. 1 have not been proved in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and in the absence of any such finding, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. On facts Sri B.B. Jauhari further submits that the statement of the attesting witnesses also do not tally with the statements of the other witnesses and in particular he has invited the attention of the Court to the statements of Ganga Prasad and Parmeshwari Dayal in relation to the registered Will dated 15.7.1985. It is urged that Ganga Prasad on the one hand stated that the entire execution of the Will by Smt. Chameli Devi on 15.7.1985 was conducted through the aid of Parmeshwari Dayal whereas Parmeshwari Dayal in his statement denied the same. This contradiction according to Sri Jauhari raises a serious doubt and suspicion about the execution of the Will itself. He further contends that in view of the various judgments of the Apex Court Parmeshwari Dayal being the husband of the beneficiary under the Will has established his presence which further makes the circumstances more doubtful and the judgments of the Apex Court come to the aid of the petitioner on this count. He has filed a compilation of the said judgments, which are as follows: 1. H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443. 2. Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai and others, AIR 1965 SC 354. 3. Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365. 4. S.R. Srinivasa and others v. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274. ;