Ram Pal And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel one respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra for respondent No.3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.4.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to succession of property which was recorded in the name of one Chaudhary in two villages, the details of which is as under:- The land of khata No.73 of gata No.s 258/1.052 situated in Village Lodhaura, Parana Aurangabad, Tehsil Mishrikh and the land of khata No. 264, gata No.s 600/0.186, khata No.27 gata No.s 696/0.348, khata No.28 gata No.s 503 Ka/0.069, 548 Chha/0.028, 549 Kha/0.061, 559 Kha/0.040, 589 Ga/0.065, 606 sa/0.024, 607 Ga/0.016, 610 Ka/0.065, 690/0.450, khata No.26 gata No.691/0.368, khata No.265 gata No.s 587/0.097, 637/0.239, 670/0.150, 671/0.182; khata No.254 gata No.s 636ka/0.061; khata No.50, gata No. 465/0.194, 508/0.174, 509/0.178 situated in village Chandpur, Pargana Korauna, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

3. It has been stated that Chaudhary had three sons, namely, Kadile, Ganai Ram and Ram Gulam and after death of Chaudhary the property was transferred in the name of his aforesaid three sons in equal proportions. Ganai Ram had two daughters, namely Kamla Devi and Madhuri Devi, who were looking after Ganai Ram as their mother had died. Ganai Ram had agricultural land in two different villages in Tehsil Mishrikh in District Sitapur and had executed a will deed in favour of his two daughters on 17.4.2001, namely Madhuri and Kamla Devi bequeathing his entire agriculture land situated in Village Ludhaura which was to be transferred in favour of his daughter Madhuri Devi and the remaining land situated in another village was to be equally divided between both the daughters, namely Madhuri and Kamla Devi.4.

4. On the death of Ganai Ram on 17.4.2001 an application for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code was filed on the basis of will deed dated 17.4.2001. In the 2 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 said proceedings the marginal witnesses of the will namely Heeralal son of Ram Karan and Ram Nath son of Babu Ram was recorded. Heera Lal testified that the will had been executed in his presence and fulfilled all the conditions as provided under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and was subjected to cross examination by the respondents.

5. In the proceedings before the Tehsildar objections were filed by private respondents detailing existence of the said will and they sought to disapprove the will and prayed that the land be recorded in their names as they were the brothers of Ganai Ram and according to Indian Succession Act 171 of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act the land would revert back to the male linen descendant to the exclusion of the daughters of late Ganai Ram.

6. The Tehsildar returned a finding that the marginal witness Heera Lal had proved that the will was transcribed on a stamp paper and was written by Ganai Ram and the stamp paper was also purchased from a stamp vendor. It is further stated that Ganai Ram used to stay with his daughters as his health was not keeping well and it is his daughters who were looking after him and, therefore, there was sufficient reason for him to have executed the will in favour of his daughters and accordingly allowed the application for mutation vide order dated 27.1.2005.

7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2005 the private respondents had preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh. The appellate authority considered only the fact that the will was unregistered will which was executed on the date on which Ganai Ram had died and has held that the will was suspicious in as much as the same was not registered and there was no adequate reason given by the petitioners for non-registration of the said will. It is in aforesaid circumstances that he set aside the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2005 passed by Naib Tehsildar and allowed the appeal preferred by private respondents.

8. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before Board of Revenue, which though has discussed the entire factual matrix of the matter but merely stated that unregistered will is suspicious and accordingly affirmed the order passed by appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 8.1.2024 and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.

9. Assailing the order of Board of Revenue as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate , learned counsel or the petitioners submits that the claim of the petitioners who are daughters of Ganai Ram was on the basis of an unregistered will dated 17.4.2001. He submits that before the Tehsildar the petitioners were able to prove the said will in as much as the marginal witness testified in favour of the petitioners and they have proved that the will was executed by Ganai Ram in their presence and was signed by him. It was further stated that stamp paper were purchased from a stamp vendor and all the aspects pertaining to execution of the will was proved.

10. At this stage, we hasten to add that the marginal witness Hera Lal was subjected to 3 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 cross examination by the private respondents and even after cross examination the statements made in examination in chief could not be disapproved by the respondents. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the Naib Tehsildar returned a finding holding that the registered will was properly executed and that the petitioners were entitled to succeed the property of Ganai Ram. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the other hand, had considered the point with regard to non registration of will. He set aside the order of Naib Tehsildar solely considering the fact that the will was executed on the same day on which date Ganai Ram had died and, therefore, the same time gap between the execution and time of his death and no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner. With regard to non registration of the said will learned counsel for the petitioners had vehemently submitted that there was no necessity of registration of the will in as much as an unregistered will is also a legal documents by which rights of any person can be transferred, subject to it being proved in accordance with law.

11. Apart from the above, it was found that there is no mandatory condition that will has to be compulsorily registered. In the aforesaid circumstances it as stated that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has misdirected himself in not affirming the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate and rejecting the claim of the petitioners solely on the ground that the will was unregistered will. It was stated that the order of Board of Revenue itself was illegal and arbitrary in as much as it was passed only stating that the will was suspicious without even giving reasons that the finding recorded by Naib Tehsildar is perverse and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, prayer was made for setting aside the orders dated 31.10.2025 and 8.1.2024.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition. They have submitted that the claim of the petitioners is only on the basis of an unregistered will which was executed in highly suspicious circumstances and accordingly prayed that the finding recorded by Subs Divisional Magistrate and Board of Revenue do not require any interference and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the petitioners were able to prove the will dated 17.4.2001 before the Naib Tehsildar and we further notice the fact that Heera Lal one of the attesting witnesses to the will had entered into the witness box and he affirmed all the aspects with regard to execution of the will and even during the cross examination he sustained the statement made by him n support of the said will.

14. Accordingly, I find that the Naib Tehsildar has correctly recorded the finding with regard to execution of the will. Apart from the above, the surrounding circumstances also support the case of the petitioners in as much as he was survived by only two daughters and on last part of his life when his health was not keeping well was looked after by his daughters. Accordingly, in all natural circumstances in such a situation it cannot said that any person would not execute will in favour of his daughters. The 4 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 only fortuitous circumstances raised by the respondents is with regard to execution of the will. In the present case, the will was duly executed on 7.4.2001 and on the later part of the day Ganai Ram had died. Merely because the will was executed on the same day cannot be held to be suspicious in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. The will was, therefore, duly proved in the court of competent jurisdiction. Before the Naib Tehsildar no evidence was placed by the respondents to indicate whether the execution of the will on 174.2001 was under suspicious circumstances nor it is a case of the respondents that the will was executed after death of Ganai Ram. In absence of any cogent or credible evidence led by the respondents the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Board Revenue have wrongly returned a finding that the execution of the will was suspicious.

15. This Court is of the considered view that the orders dated 31.10.2025 and 8.1.2024 deserve interference. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 8.1.2024 and 31.10.2025 are set aside. The order of Naib Tehsildar dated 27.1.2005 is affirmed.

16. It is made clear that any order passed by revenue authorities under Section 34 will be subjected to any finding recorded by court of competent jurisdiction and accordingly the respondents will always be at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for declaration of the rights with regard to disputed property. December 18, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel one respondent No.s 1 and 2, Sri Nitin Kumar Mishra for respondent No.3 and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey for respondent No.4.

2. The dispute in the present case is with regard to succession of property which was recorded in the name of one Chaudhary in two villages, the details of which is as under:- The land of khata No.73 of gata No.s 258/1.052 situated in Village Lodhaura, Parana Aurangabad, Tehsil Mishrikh and the land of khata No. 264, gata No.s 600/0.186, khata No.27 gata No.s 696/0.348, khata No.28 gata No.s 503 Ka/0.069, 548 Chha/0.028, 549 Kha/0.061, 559 Kha/0.040, 589 Ga/0.065, 606 sa/0.024, 607 Ga/0.016, 610 Ka/0.065, 690/0.450, khata No.26 gata No.691/0.368, khata No.265 gata No.s 587/0.097, 637/0.239, 670/0.150, 671/0.182; khata No.254 gata No.s 636ka/0.061; khata No.50, gata No. 465/0.194, 508/0.174, 509/0.178 situated in village Chandpur, Pargana Korauna, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur.

3. It has been stated that Chaudhary had three sons, namely, Kadile, Ganai Ram and Ram Gulam and after death of Chaudhary the property was transferred in the name of his aforesaid three sons in equal proportions. Ganai Ram had two daughters, namely Kamla Devi and Madhuri Devi, who were looking after Ganai Ram as their mother had died. Ganai Ram had agricultural land in two different villages in Tehsil Mishrikh in District Sitapur and had executed a will deed in favour of his two daughters on 17.4.2001, namely Madhuri and Kamla Devi bequeathing his entire agriculture land situated in Village Ludhaura which was to be transferred in favour of his daughter Madhuri Devi and the remaining land situated in another village was to be equally divided between both the daughters, namely Madhuri and Kamla Devi.4.

4. On the death of Ganai Ram on 17.4.2001 an application for mutation under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code was filed on the basis of will deed dated 17.4.2001. In the 2 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 said proceedings the marginal witnesses of the will namely Heeralal son of Ram Karan and Ram Nath son of Babu Ram was recorded. Heera Lal testified that the will had been executed in his presence and fulfilled all the conditions as provided under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and was subjected to cross examination by the respondents.

5. In the proceedings before the Tehsildar objections were filed by private respondents detailing existence of the said will and they sought to disapprove the will and prayed that the land be recorded in their names as they were the brothers of Ganai Ram and according to Indian Succession Act 171 of U.P.Z.A. L.R. Act the land would revert back to the male linen descendant to the exclusion of the daughters of late Ganai Ram.

6. The Tehsildar returned a finding that the marginal witness Heera Lal had proved that the will was transcribed on a stamp paper and was written by Ganai Ram and the stamp paper was also purchased from a stamp vendor. It is further stated that Ganai Ram used to stay with his daughters as his health was not keeping well and it is his daughters who were looking after him and, therefore, there was sufficient reason for him to have executed the will in favour of his daughters and accordingly allowed the application for mutation vide order dated 27.1.2005.

7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.1.2005 the private respondents had preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh. The appellate authority considered only the fact that the will was unregistered will which was executed on the date on which Ganai Ram had died and has held that the will was suspicious in as much as the same was not registered and there was no adequate reason given by the petitioners for non-registration of the said will. It is in aforesaid circumstances that he set aside the aforesaid order dated 27.1.2005 passed by Naib Tehsildar and allowed the appeal preferred by private respondents.

8. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision before Board of Revenue, which though has discussed the entire factual matrix of the matter but merely stated that unregistered will is suspicious and accordingly affirmed the order passed by appellate authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 8.1.2024 and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner.

9. Assailing the order of Board of Revenue as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate , learned counsel or the petitioners submits that the claim of the petitioners who are daughters of Ganai Ram was on the basis of an unregistered will dated 17.4.2001. He submits that before the Tehsildar the petitioners were able to prove the said will in as much as the marginal witness testified in favour of the petitioners and they have proved that the will was executed by Ganai Ram in their presence and was signed by him. It was further stated that stamp paper were purchased from a stamp vendor and all the aspects pertaining to execution of the will was proved.

10. At this stage, we hasten to add that the marginal witness Hera Lal was subjected to 3 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 cross examination by the private respondents and even after cross examination the statements made in examination in chief could not be disapproved by the respondents. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the Naib Tehsildar returned a finding holding that the registered will was properly executed and that the petitioners were entitled to succeed the property of Ganai Ram. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the other hand, had considered the point with regard to non registration of will. He set aside the order of Naib Tehsildar solely considering the fact that the will was executed on the same day on which date Ganai Ram had died and, therefore, the same time gap between the execution and time of his death and no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the petitioner. With regard to non registration of the said will learned counsel for the petitioners had vehemently submitted that there was no necessity of registration of the will in as much as an unregistered will is also a legal documents by which rights of any person can be transferred, subject to it being proved in accordance with law.

11. Apart from the above, it was found that there is no mandatory condition that will has to be compulsorily registered. In the aforesaid circumstances it as stated that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has misdirected himself in not affirming the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate and rejecting the claim of the petitioners solely on the ground that the will was unregistered will. It was stated that the order of Board of Revenue itself was illegal and arbitrary in as much as it was passed only stating that the will was suspicious without even giving reasons that the finding recorded by Naib Tehsildar is perverse and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, prayer was made for setting aside the orders dated 31.10.2025 and 8.1.2024.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have opposed the writ petition. They have submitted that the claim of the petitioners is only on the basis of an unregistered will which was executed in highly suspicious circumstances and accordingly prayed that the finding recorded by Subs Divisional Magistrate and Board of Revenue do not require any interference and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

13. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the petitioners were able to prove the will dated 17.4.2001 before the Naib Tehsildar and we further notice the fact that Heera Lal one of the attesting witnesses to the will had entered into the witness box and he affirmed all the aspects with regard to execution of the will and even during the cross examination he sustained the statement made by him n support of the said will.

14. Accordingly, I find that the Naib Tehsildar has correctly recorded the finding with regard to execution of the will. Apart from the above, the surrounding circumstances also support the case of the petitioners in as much as he was survived by only two daughters and on last part of his life when his health was not keeping well was looked after by his daughters. Accordingly, in all natural circumstances in such a situation it cannot said that any person would not execute will in favour of his daughters. The 4 WRIB No. 1215 of 2025 only fortuitous circumstances raised by the respondents is with regard to execution of the will. In the present case, the will was duly executed on 7.4.2001 and on the later part of the day Ganai Ram had died. Merely because the will was executed on the same day cannot be held to be suspicious in absence of any cogent and reliable evidence in this regard. The will was, therefore, duly proved in the court of competent jurisdiction. Before the Naib Tehsildar no evidence was placed by the respondents to indicate whether the execution of the will on 174.2001 was under suspicious circumstances nor it is a case of the respondents that the will was executed after death of Ganai Ram. In absence of any cogent or credible evidence led by the respondents the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Board Revenue have wrongly returned a finding that the execution of the will was suspicious.

15. This Court is of the considered view that the orders dated 31.10.2025 and 8.1.2024 deserve interference. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 8.1.2024 and 31.10.2025 are set aside. The order of Naib Tehsildar dated 27.1.2005 is affirmed.

16. It is made clear that any order passed by revenue authorities under Section 34 will be subjected to any finding recorded by court of competent jurisdiction and accordingly the respondents will always be at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for declaration of the rights with regard to disputed property. December 18, 2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur,J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench