Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) The short question which arises for determination is whether oral statement of witness which is not signed by Presiding Officer before whom it was recorded, can be relied upon and read in evidence.
(2.) The facts are that on death of recorded tenure holder an objection under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by the petitioner claiming mutation of his name on the basis of a will dated 21.9.1977. Respondent No. 3 contested the claim of the petitioner denying the execution of the will and claimed mutation of her name over the property in dispute claiming herself to be wife of the deceased.
(3.) The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 31.12.1980 allowed the claim of the petitioner. Appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed by settlement Officer consolidation on the ground that oral evidence relied upon did not bear the signature of the Presiding Officer and remanded the case back. The revision was also dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.;