UMA SHANKAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

are different. As per the gift deed produced by the defendants, 5 the donee had three children at the time of execution of the gift deed which means that one son and two daughters were born to Most. Lachhia from Satiram @ Sitaram @ Balkaran. In the certified copy of the gift deed of the petitioners, no such recital is there. Petitioners have challenged the impugned orders on the ground that the documents produced by them were not properly considered by the Assistant Director, Consolidation as well as the Joint Director, Consolidation. It is also one of the ground that hopelessly time barred appeal filed by Respondents was entertained by Assistant Director without condoning the delay ignoring the settled law. It is also submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that the sale-deeds executed by Ramkeshi Singh during his life-time, were also not considered by courts below, where he had given name of his father, as Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh. In the School Leaving Certificate of Ramkeshi Singh also, father’s name has been mentioned as Sitaram Singh @ Balkaran Singh. All these documents which were of unclinching piece of evidence were completely ignored by the courts below. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand, stated that the story of second marriage of Most. Lachhia was hatched up by Balkaran Singh. Most Lachhia died in the year, 1963. Ramkeshi Singh was mentally weak, taking advantage of this, Balkaran Singh created several documents. 6 In case Balkaran Singh was husband of Lachhia, then in the revisional survey Khatiyan published in the year, 1970-71 , his name should have been entered as raiyat in respect of lands. During the life-time of father, ancestral property firstly devolves upon father who is the head of the family. But at the time of revisional survey operation, name of Ramkeshi Singh was entered in respect of land in question in R.S. Khatiyan , this shows that he was not married to Lachhia, and was not father of Ramkeshi. What I find that several documents are being relied upon by the parties, claim and counter claims are being made. These matters can be decided only when parties will lead evidence, documents will be proved, exhibited finding would be recorded. Question of title involved in this case cannot be decided by a writ court. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of. Any of the parties who will feel requirement to get their title decided, with respect to the disputed land, will approach to the civil court of competent jurisdiction to get the right , title and possession decided over the disputed lands. Present order and the impugned order will not cause any prejudice to the parties. AKV/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )