High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Janardan Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

3. Present writ petition is outcome of the mutation proceedings which were instituted on the death of one Ram Sewak, who died on 28.02.2010.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the death of Ram Sewak proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 were instituted by one Ram Kali W/o Hem Lal, stating that Ram Sewak was the real brother of her husband and had executed a will deed in her favour on 27.02.2010, which was registered on 04.03.2010. Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, District - Hardoi had examined the claim of Smt. Ram Kali and was of the view that the will was executed one day prior to the death of Ram Sewak and was got registered much after the death of Ram Sewak on 04.03.2010. He also considered the objections filed by respondent no. 5 - Sarvesh, who had claimed himself to be the only son of Ram Sewak. He has stated that the will was illegally and arbitrarily got registered by one Ram Kishan Yadav. Further before the Tehsildar (Judicial) no effort was made to prove the will by producing witnesses and considering the circumstances in which the will was executed, which is one day prior to death of Ram Sewak and same was registered much after his death, the will was disbelieved. The Tehsildar did not relied upon the said will deed, while on the other hand Sarvesh - respondent no. 5 produced Manohar as witness who supported the case of respondent no. 5 and the petitioners never attempted to cross examine Manohar to dispute his deposition before the Tehsildar.

5. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, Sarvesh has adduced documentary evidence in the form of Parivar Register where he is indicated to be only son of Ram Sewak, and also the, voter list which demonstrates that Ram Sewak and Sarvesh were residents of same house and accordingly, rejected the claim of Ram Kali and held that Sarvesh was entitled to be substituted in place of Ram Sewak, by means of order dated 30.05.2016.

6. The order of Tehsildar, dated 30.05.2016, was assailed before the Assistant Collector Ist / Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi at the behest of the petitioners in appeal. In appeal the petitioners for the first time raised contention that wife of Ram Sewak had married his brother Hem Lal and petitioners are sons of Hem Lal and consequently entitled to succeed property of Ram Sewak.

7. The respondent no. 5 had opposed the claim of petitioners and stated that only with a view of usurp the property of Ram Sewak, false stand/claim has been set up by the petitioners. He has further stated that on the previous occasion claim of Ram Kali was considered by Tehsildar, Sadar and was found to be false and the will on the basis of which claim was made, could not be proved and this is another attempt to take over the property of Ram Sewak. Tehsildar has further found that in the voter list which was prepared during life time of Ram Sewak, only name of Sarvesh is mentioned and relied upon the said document as being true and correct depiction of sons of Ram Sewak and did not find any evidence adduced by the petitioners to be reliable and rejected petitioners contention.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners had filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) - Ist, Lucknow which has also been rejected by means of order dated 30.08.2019 and accordingly in the present writ petition impugned orders dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), First, order dated 26.08.2016, passed by the Deputy Collector, First class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Hardoi and order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Hardoi, have been assailed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as examined the material available on record.

10. The dispute in the present case pertains to succession with regard to property of one Ram Sewak, who died on 28.02.2010 and an application was given by one Ram Kali claiming herself to be wife of Ram Sewak, on the basis of will deed dated 27.02.2010. Tehsildar (Judicial) did not relied upon the said will as the same was executed a day prior to the death of Ram Sewak and was registered on 04.03.2010. In any view of the matter the said will was never proved as per provisionsof Section 63 and 68 of the Succession Act and consequently, he up held the claim of Sarvesh, respondent no. 5 to be successor of late Ram Sewak.

11. Ram Kali did not filed any appeal and findings of Tehsildar became final. In appeal filed by the petitioners they have claimed themselves to be nephew of Ram Sewak and sons of Ram Kali and accordingly entitled to succeed the property of Ram Sewak. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioners could not prove their case or adduce any cogent evidence before the appellate authority. Even the revision preferred by the petitioners has been rejected.

12. It is noticed that various persons have claimed property of Ram Sewak, specially Ram Kali who on one hand is the mother of the petitioners and had claimed that Ram Sewak has bequeathed his property on the basis of will deed, which was filed before the Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi. In appeal, the petitioners set up yet another case that they are nephew of Ram Sewak. and Ram Sewak died inte state. This aspect of the matter also could not be proved before the appellate authority and they carried the dispute in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), First, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. In the revision the petitioners have challenged the findings of the trial Court that Sarvesh is the son of Ram Sewak, while on the other hand they claimed themselves to be nephew of Ram Sewak and accordingly they were entitled to succeed the property of late Ram Sewak alongwith Sarvesh.

13. This Court finds that all the authorities have duly examined the contentions of the petitioners and had found that there was no material on record, and rejected the same. Even in the present writ petition no material or document has been filed which may persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned orders and return finding in favour of petitioners.

14. The falsity of claim of Ram Kali and the petitioners is writ large on the face of the record. When the will could not be proved, the petitioners have filed the appeal against the order of Tehsildar dated 30.05.2016. Fresh facts were raised in the appeal, and the grounds of claim to the property of Ram Sewak has been changing over period of time. Their contentions were being rightly rejected by all the authorities in absence of any reliable or cogent evidence.

15. Apart from the above, this Court finds that there was reliable or cogent evidence filed by Sarvesh - respondent no. 5 in the form of statement of Manohar, parivar register and voter list, which clearly indicated that Sarvesh was the son of late Ram Sewak.

16. In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no good ground has been made out by the petitioners to interfere in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Janardan Dixit, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondent is dispensed with.

3. Present writ petition is outcome of the mutation proceedings which were instituted on the death of one Ram Sewak, who died on 28.02.2010.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on the death of Ram Sewak proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 were instituted by one Ram Kali W/o Hem Lal, stating that Ram Sewak was the real brother of her husband and had executed a will deed in her favour on 27.02.2010, which was registered on 04.03.2010. Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Sadar, District - Hardoi had examined the claim of Smt. Ram Kali and was of the view that the will was executed one day prior to the death of Ram Sewak and was got registered much after the death of Ram Sewak on 04.03.2010. He also considered the objections filed by respondent no. 5 - Sarvesh, who had claimed himself to be the only son of Ram Sewak. He has stated that the will was illegally and arbitrarily got registered by one Ram Kishan Yadav. Further before the Tehsildar (Judicial) no effort was made to prove the will by producing witnesses and considering the circumstances in which the will was executed, which is one day prior to death of Ram Sewak and same was registered much after his death, the will was disbelieved. The Tehsildar did not relied upon the said will deed, while on the other hand Sarvesh - respondent no. 5 produced Manohar as witness who supported the case of respondent no. 5 and the petitioners never attempted to cross examine Manohar to dispute his deposition before the Tehsildar.

5. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, Sarvesh has adduced documentary evidence in the form of Parivar Register where he is indicated to be only son of Ram Sewak, and also the, voter list which demonstrates that Ram Sewak and Sarvesh were residents of same house and accordingly, rejected the claim of Ram Kali and held that Sarvesh was entitled to be substituted in place of Ram Sewak, by means of order dated 30.05.2016.

6. The order of Tehsildar, dated 30.05.2016, was assailed before the Assistant Collector Ist / Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi at the behest of the petitioners in appeal. In appeal the petitioners for the first time raised contention that wife of Ram Sewak had married his brother Hem Lal and petitioners are sons of Hem Lal and consequently entitled to succeed property of Ram Sewak.

7. The respondent no. 5 had opposed the claim of petitioners and stated that only with a view of usurp the property of Ram Sewak, false stand/claim has been set up by the petitioners. He has further stated that on the previous occasion claim of Ram Kali was considered by Tehsildar, Sadar and was found to be false and the will on the basis of which claim was made, could not be proved and this is another attempt to take over the property of Ram Sewak. Tehsildar has further found that in the voter list which was prepared during life time of Ram Sewak, only name of Sarvesh is mentioned and relied upon the said document as being true and correct depiction of sons of Ram Sewak and did not find any evidence adduced by the petitioners to be reliable and rejected petitioners contention.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioners had filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) - Ist, Lucknow which has also been rejected by means of order dated 30.08.2019 and accordingly in the present writ petition impugned orders dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), First, order dated 26.08.2016, passed by the Deputy Collector, First class/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil - Sadar, District - Hardoi and order dated 30.05.2016, passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial), Sadar, Hardoi, have been assailed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as examined the material available on record.

10. The dispute in the present case pertains to succession with regard to property of one Ram Sewak, who died on 28.02.2010 and an application was given by one Ram Kali claiming herself to be wife of Ram Sewak, on the basis of will deed dated 27.02.2010. Tehsildar (Judicial) did not relied upon the said will as the same was executed a day prior to the death of Ram Sewak and was registered on 04.03.2010. In any view of the matter the said will was never proved as per provisionsof Section 63 and 68 of the Succession Act and consequently, he up held the claim of Sarvesh, respondent no. 5 to be successor of late Ram Sewak.

11. Ram Kali did not filed any appeal and findings of Tehsildar became final. In appeal filed by the petitioners they have claimed themselves to be nephew of Ram Sewak and sons of Ram Kali and accordingly entitled to succeed the property of Ram Sewak. The appeal was dismissed as the petitioners could not prove their case or adduce any cogent evidence before the appellate authority. Even the revision preferred by the petitioners has been rejected.

12. It is noticed that various persons have claimed property of Ram Sewak, specially Ram Kali who on one hand is the mother of the petitioners and had claimed that Ram Sewak has bequeathed his property on the basis of will deed, which was filed before the Tehsildar, Sadar, Hardoi. In appeal, the petitioners set up yet another case that they are nephew of Ram Sewak. and Ram Sewak died inte state. This aspect of the matter also could not be proved before the appellate authority and they carried the dispute in revision before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), First, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. In the revision the petitioners have challenged the findings of the trial Court that Sarvesh is the son of Ram Sewak, while on the other hand they claimed themselves to be nephew of Ram Sewak and accordingly they were entitled to succeed the property of late Ram Sewak alongwith Sarvesh.

13. This Court finds that all the authorities have duly examined the contentions of the petitioners and had found that there was no material on record, and rejected the same. Even in the present writ petition no material or document has been filed which may persuade this Court to interfere in the impugned orders and return finding in favour of petitioners.

14. The falsity of claim of Ram Kali and the petitioners is writ large on the face of the record. When the will could not be proved, the petitioners have filed the appeal against the order of Tehsildar dated 30.05.2016. Fresh facts were raised in the appeal, and the grounds of claim to the property of Ram Sewak has been changing over period of time. Their contentions were being rightly rejected by all the authorities in absence of any reliable or cogent evidence.

15. Apart from the above, this Court finds that there was reliable or cogent evidence filed by Sarvesh - respondent no. 5 in the form of statement of Manohar, parivar register and voter list, which clearly indicated that Sarvesh was the son of late Ram Sewak.

16. In the light of above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that no good ground has been made out by the petitioners to interfere in the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench