Allowed

Pannalal and Another v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2021WRIB/156/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an arbitrary and illegal order by a revising court that had set aside an order allowing restoration of a case. The Court held the authenticity of a will is a question of fact for the trial court. Directing the trial court to decide the matter on merits within a year. Petition allowed to this extent.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the revising court is set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the matter within one year.

Pannalal and Another Vs the Deputy Director of… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 156 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Pannalal And Another

¶4

Respondent :- The Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Nand Rai,Vijay Anand Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,Chandra Shekhar Sharma

¶6

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶7

Sri Krishna Nand Rai, learned counsel assisted by Sri Vijay Anand Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are the sons of the deceased Basanta. They are the natural heirs to the estate of the deceased Basanta. By means of a forged will the order of succession is sought to be disturbed to deprive the petitioners of their lawful claim to the property of their father. The order dated 04.02.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer finds in favour of the will, was ex parte to the petitioners. The petitioners could not enter pleadings or tender evidence to refute the aforesaid will. The petitioners made an application for restoration of the case, which was allowed by the order dated 26.02.2010. The respondent No. 3 claiming on the foot of the aforesaid will made an application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 26.02.2010. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Consolidation Officer by judgment and order dated 27.02.2017. The impleadment application of the respondent No. 2 was also allowed by the order dated 27.02.2017.

¶8

The impugned order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the revising court has set aside the order dated 27.02.2017 and the order dated 26.02. 2010 without reversing any of the findings made by the court below.

¶9

Faced with this Sri Chandra Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 do not oppose the prayer in the writ petition. They however, pray that they may be given full opportunity to submit pleadings, tender evidence and make the necessary arguments in support of their title before the trial court. Further they may be permitted to take pleadings and tender evidence in support of the will.

¶10

In the of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the revising court has not reversed any of the findings rendered by the courts below. The courts in their orders dated 26.02.2010 as well as order dated 27.2.2017 give good reasons for allowing the restoration application and declining the application to recall the earlier order dated 26.02.2010. All relevant parties were heard by the learned trial court. Moreover I find that both the petitioners as well as the respondents No. 2 and 3 who are necessary parties have been heard and are liable to be heard by the trial court.

¶11

The authenticity of the will or otherwise are matters to be adjudicated by the original court which is the trier of facts. This can only be done by receiving evidence from the parties on the foundation of pleadings. Parties have to be given opportunity by the courts to do so.

¶12

There is no infirmity in the orders dated 26.02.2010 and 27.02.2017 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Further they are not being contested as seen earlier.

¶13

The order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the revising court in Revisions No. 186/1396 and 187/1394 is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

¶14

Learned trial court/ Consolidation Officer is directed to decide

¶15

the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

All parties before this Court undertake to cooperate with the proceedings before the trial court/ Consolidation Officer.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.3.2021 Nadeem Ahmad

Pannalal and Another v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pannalal and Another v. the Deputy Director of Consolidation and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Prasad Vs Deputy Collector/Settlement Officer of Consolidation and 2 Others

Sushil Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Ganga Sahay and 2 Others Vs Depuy Director of Consolidation and 14 Others

Vijayveer Singh Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Amroha and 10 Others

Ramanageena Chauhan Vs Deputy Director Consolidation and 5 Others

Smt. Tara and Others Vs D.D.C. Saharanpur and Others