- (1.) S. P. Srivastaya, J. Feeling aggrieved by an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act whereunder allowing the revision and upsetting the order of the Consolidation Officer upheld by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal, the present petitioner was found to be disentitled to inherit any right, title or interest of late Udai Bhan Singh in the holdings indispute on the ground that he could not be held to be the legitimate son Of the deceased tenure-holder and directing for the correction of the basic year entry in the record of right standing in the name of Udai Bhan Singh by recording therein the names of his grandsons Udai Pratap Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh only.
(2.) THE petitioner has now approached this court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order. There is no dispute and this fact is also borne out from the record that Udai Pratap Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh, the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of the pre-deceased son of Udai Bhan Singh. It is also not disputed that Krishna Pratap, the petitioner is the son of Udai Bhan Singh. However, the claim of the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has been that Ajai Pratap Singh their father was born out of he lawful wed-lock between Udai Bhan Singh and Smt. Raj Laxmi Devi, whereas Krishna Pratap Singh, the petitioner was an illegitimate son of Udai Bhan Singh born of his union with Smt. Yashoda Devi, a concubine who had never been married to Udai Bhan Singh. Therefore, it is claimed that the petitioner could not be held entitled to have succeeded any right, title or interest of Udai Bhan Singh in the holdings in dispute after his death on 16. 11. 1962. The claim of the petitioner has however, been that on the death of Smt. Raj Laxmi Devi his first wife, in the year 1934, Udai Bhan Singh had married Smt. Yashoda Devi in 1936 and out of this wed-lock the petitioner as well as his seven sisters were born and in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 171 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he was also entitled to succeed half share in the holdings in dispute being one of the two legitimate sons of deceased Udai Bhan Singh. It was further claimed that in any view of the matter considering that since Udai Bhan Singh and Smt. Yashoda Devi constantly, continuously and openly lived as husband and wife and cohabited together for about 25 years and had eight children and further having been regarded and recognised by friends and relations as husband and wife, a valid marriage between them had to be presumed and in such a circumstance succession as claimed could not be denied.
(3.) I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and have carefully perused the record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer and affirmed in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, there could be no justification for not raising the presumption of a valid marriage between Udai Shan Singh and Smt. Yashoda Devi specially in the absence of any such compelling circumstance which could rebutt the aforesaid presumption. The contention is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the impugned order has manifestly erred in holding the presumption of a valid marriage between Udai Bhan Singh and Smt. Yashoda Devi to have been rebutted on irrelevant considerations. It has also been urged that while exercising the revisory jurisdiction contemplated under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not re-assess or reappraise the evidence and interfere in the finding on a question off act arrived at on an appreciation of documentary and oral evidence led by the parties in the case in the absence of any compelling circumstances. It is urged that in the circumstances of the case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exceeded the jurisdiction contemplated under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the impugned order deserves to be quashed having been passed in excess of jurisdiction.;