Dismissed

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial and 10 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2024/523/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash mutation orders. The court found the petitioners guilty of abusing the process of law by suppressing facts and submitting two forged unregistered wills of the same date to claim property rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited before the Senior Registrar within three months.

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs Board of Revenue… — Succession and Inheritance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37962

¶3

A.F.R.

¶4

Court No. - 18

¶5

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 523 of 2024 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar And 2 Others

¶6

Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial And 10 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Rai

¶8

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anshuman Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey,Karan Srivastava

¶9

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶10

Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has filed a short counter affidavit bringing on record the copies of the sale deed and the memo of revision filed by the petitioners, which is taken on record.

¶11

The learned counsels for the parties state that it would not be necessary to file the detailed counter affidavit or the rejoinder affidavit and the matter may be heard finally, at this stage.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also filed a certified copy of the memo of revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1901) against the order of the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013, the same is taken on record.

¶13

Heard Shri Anurag Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.

¶14

Present petition has been preferred with the following main reliefs:-

¶15

"i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Second Appeal No.56

¶16

¶17

of 2015 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition;

¶18

ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow i.e, opposite party no.2 in Appeal No.C20141000002607, judgment and order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Rae-bareli i.e. opposite party no.5 in Case No.233, judgment and order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow i.e. opposite party no.3 in Revision No.582/2012-13 as well as judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Tehsildar Sadar, Rae-bareli ie, opposite party no.5 in Case No.746 which are contained in Annexure-10, 8, 5 & 3 respectively to the writ petition;

¶19

iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties no.1 to 6 not to implement the impugned judgment and orders as contained in Annexure14,10, 8, 5 & 3 respectively to the writ petition;"

¶20

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the nephew of late Ram Gopal alias Gopal, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of nephew of late Ram Gopal and petitioner no. 3 is son of petitioner no. 2.

¶21

It is further submitted that the dispute in the present case is with regard to Plot Nos. 242/0.5369, 245M/0.0060, 261M/0.039, 262M/0.0080 and 5/0.264 situated at Village Kisunpur Ram Chandar, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rae Bareli.

¶22

It is further submitted that the petitioners belong to the same family which the late Ram Gopal belonged. Dispute is with regard to the property belonging to the late Ram Gopal. For convenience, the pedigree is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶23

¶24

Birju

¶25

Gurudeen Ram Gopal alias Gopal (dead) (wife Rajdei)

¶26

Sukhdev Santosh Ayodhya Prasad (Wife-Sarvesh Kumari)

¶27

Alok Kumar

¶28

It is further submitted that petitioners had come to know about the unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 executed by late Ram Gopal in favour of Gurudeen, Santosh Kumar and Ayodhya Prasad. After the demise of Ayodhya Prasad, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 being the wife and son of late Ayodhya Prasad respectively step into the shoes of late Ayodhya Prasad.

¶29

After getting the copy of unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003, the petitioners moved an application before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, the Code, 2006) for mutation of their names in the revenue records in place of late Ram Gopal. The application preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Tehsildar by order dated 21.01.2013. Against the said order, petitioners had preferred a revision which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 11.03.2014. Assailing the said order, petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10446 (M/B) of 2012, which was also dismissed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 19.12.2012 with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate alternative remedy for the claim of title.

¶30

It is further submitted that after the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2012, petitioners had preferred a Suit under Section 229 (B) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

¶31

¶32

(hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1950), claiming their rights on the basis of unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003. The Suit of the petitioners was dismissed by judgment and order dated 13.10.2014. Against the said order, the petitioners filed a First Appeal under Section 331 of the Act, 1950 with a specific pleading therein that the petitioners had filed only four documents before the Tehsildar and no unregistered Will was produced before the Tehsildar but the Tehsildar passed the order by referring some unregistered Will. The said Appeal preferred by the petitioners was rejected/dismissed by the judgment and order dated 18.12.2014. Against the judgment and order passed in the First Appeal, the petitioners preferred a Second Appeal under Section 331 (4) of the Act, 1950, which was also dismissed by impugned order dated 28.03.2024 and thus, feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed before this Court impugning the orders passed.

¶33

It is further submitted that the Courts below had failed to appreciate or had ignored the fact that the petitioners had never filed any copy of unregistered Will before the Tehsildar but the findings were recorded by the Tehsildar in his order dated 21.01.2013 regarding the unregistered Will, all the Courts below had decided the cases against the petitioners on the basis of findings given by the Tehsildar in the order dated 21.03.2013 related to the unregistered Will, which was neither filed by the petitioners nor claim was on the basis of any unregistered Will.

¶34

It is further submitted that the unregistered Will produced by the petitioners in the First Appeal filed under Section 331of the Act, 1950 was never proved and the findings have been given by the Court up to the stage of Second Appeal, whereas it is necessary that if any document had been relied by the petitioners then it should be proved hence, the orders passed against the petitioners are bad in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed.

¶35

On the other hand, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent

¶36

¶37

no. 9 have submitted that the petitioners since the very beginning playing fraud with the Court by taking different stands before the different Courts or the authorities.

¶38

It is further submitted that the petitioners had produced two forged unregistered Wills of the same date and when the first unregistered Will was not accepted by the Tehsildar in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 2006 preferred by the petitioners by assigning reasons for not accepting the unregistered Will. Thereafter the petitioners produced a second unregistered Will of the same date removing all the defects and came forward with a case that before Tehsildar they had not filed any unregistered Will on which the findings were given by the Tehsildar and that too, the said objection or ground was taken for the first time at the stage of first appeal preferred against the judgment and order passed under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 and prior to that, at no point of time, the petitioners had raised such ground or plea in any of the proceedings.

¶39

It is further submitted that the petitioners have intentionally not enclosed copy of revision preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Tehsildar and the reason is obvious that in the said revision, the petitioners had not raised any such plea which was taken at the time of filing of first appeal. Copy of revision has been placed by the respondent no. 9 before this Court by filing a short counter affidavit as annexure no. C.A.-2 of the said affidavit.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced the certified copy of the revision, which has also been taken on record as is mentioned in preceding paragraph of the judgment.

¶41

It is further submitted that the petitioners are trying to grab the property of widow lady i.e. their aunt, aunt-in-law, aunt grandmother of the petitioners respectively.

¶42

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the

¶43

¶44

dispute involved in the present writ petition is with regard to Plot Nos. 242/0.5369, 245M/0.0060, 261M/0.039, 262M/0.0080 and 5/0.264 situated at Village Kisunpur Ram Chandar, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rae Bareli belonged to late Ram Gopal, who was the uncle of petitioner no. 1, uncle -in-law of the petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 is the grandson of brother of late Ram Gopal.

¶45

The issue which is to be adjudicated in the present case is that whether as per petitioners that they had never filed any unregistered Will before the Tehsildar and in absence of any unregistered Will filed by them, how the findings were given by the Tehsildar on the unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 and on the basis of which, all the courts had drawn inference against the petitioners and not believed the unregistered Will of the same date. For adjudicating these points, it is necessary to reproduce certain documents.

¶46

Firstly, para no. 5 of the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Code, 2006, before the Tehsildar. The said paragraph is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶47

" यह कि� वादीगण �े कि�ता �ी मृत्यु �े उ�रान्त प्रतित�क्षी द्वारा जमीन बेचने �ी धम�ी देने �र वादीगणों ने तहसील आ�र इन्तखाब खतौनी ली तो जान�ारी हुई कि� वादीगण �े कि�ता �े नाम सं�ूण+ भूकिम न दज+ हो�र सहखातेदारी में सरजूदेई �त्नी राम गो�ाल �ा नाम दज+ है। तब प्रार्थी1 ने अ�ने घर में कि�ता �े द्वारा रखे �ागजातों �ो देखा तो �ता चला कि� चाचा गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू �े द्वारा लिलखी अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा किद० 25-07-2003 में वादीगण �ा नाम र्थीा उक्त अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा �े आधार �र �ोई वाद न तो श्रीमान् जी �े यहाँ दालिखल कि�या गया र्थीा न ही वादीगणों

¶48

�ा नाम �ागजात सर�ारी में दज+ हुआ। "

¶49

The revision preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order of the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013, which is filed as Annexure No. S.C.A. 2 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 9

¶50

¶51

after tallying with the certified copy of the same provided by learned counsel for the petitioners. The same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶52

" न्यायालय श्रीमान् आयुक्त महोदय , लखनऊ मण्डल , लखनऊ।

¶53

====================================== 582 2012-2013 किनगरानी सख्या ं वर्ष+ 219 भू - अन्तगत धारा + राजस्व अतिधकिनयम जन�द - रायबरली।े

¶54

1. सन्तोर्ष �ुमार �ुत्रगण स्वग1य गुरुदीन किनवासीगण ग्राम अकिहयाराय�ुर ,

¶55

2. अयोध्या प्रसाद �रगना व तहील सदर , जन�द - रायबरेली।

¶56

----------------------- -------------------------- किनगरानी�ता+गण

¶57

बनाम श्रीमती सरजू देई तर्थीा �थिर्थीत �त्नी गो�ाल किनवासिसनी ग्राम कि�शुन�ुर रामचन्दर , �रगना , तहसील व जन�द - रायबरेली।

¶58

--------- ----------------- किव�क्षी

¶59

किनगरानी अन्तग+त धारा 219 भू - राजस्व अतिधकिनयम

¶60

किवरुद्ध आदेश किदनां� 21.1.2013 �ारिरत द्वारा श्रीमान्

¶61

तहसीलदार सदर , जन�द रायबरेली बावत वाद संख्या 746 अ० , धारा 34 भू - राजस्व अतिधकिनयम बमु�दमा सन्तोर्ष �ुमार मौय+ बनाम सरजू देई किववाकिदत भूकिम गाटा संख्या 242 किम० र�बा 0.5360, 245 किम० /0.0060, 261 किम० /0.0390 व 262 किम० /0.0080 हे० स्थिस्र्थीत ग्राम कि�शुन�ुर , रामचन्दर , �रगना तहसील व जन�द - रायबरेली।

¶62

महोदय ,

¶63

किनगरानी�ता+ उ�रोक्त किनगरानी श्रीमान् जी �े समक्ष किनम्नलिललिखत तथ्यों , त�M एवं आधारों �र

¶64

प्रस्तुत �र रहा हैः -

¶65

1. यहकि� उ�रोक्त किनगरानी में प्रश्नगत भूकिम �े मूल खातेदार गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू र्थीे सिजन�े �ोई औलाद

¶66

लड़�ा , लड़�ी नहीं है।

¶67

2. यहकि� उ�रोक्त गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू ने अ�ने जीवन �ाल में किदनां� 25.07.2003 �ो किनगरानी�ता+

¶68

�े �क्ष में ए� वसीयतनामा किनष्�ाकिदत �र किदया र्थीा।

¶69

3. यहकि� उ�रोक्त गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू �ी मृत्यु किदनां� 16.11.2003 �ो हो गयी उस�े बाद किनगरानी�ता+गण ने वसीयतनामें �े आधार �र ए� नामान्तरण वाद �रीक्षण न्यायालय �े समक्ष प्रस्तुत कि�या।

¶70

4. यहकि� उ�रोक्त नामान्तरण वाद में किव�तिक्षनी द्वारा स्वयं �ो उ�रोक्त गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू �ी �त्नी बताते हुये ए� आ�लिU प्रस्तुत �ी गयी।

¶71

5. यहकि� उ�रोक्त वाद नायब तहसीलदार �तिVमी रायबरेली �े समक्ष किवचाराधीन र्थीा तर्थीा किदनां�

¶72

2.2.2013 �ो सुनवाई हेतु किनयत र्थीा।

¶73

¶74

6. यहकि� किव�क्षी द्वारा ए� स्र्थीानान्तरण प्रार्थी+न - �त्र न्यायालय उ�सिजलातिध�ारी सदर , रायबरेली �े समक्ष किदनां� 31.12.2012 �ो प्रस्तुत कि�या गया सिजस �र उ�सिजलातिध�ारी रायबरेली द्वारा उ�रोक्त वाद तहसीलदार सदर , रायबरेली �े न्यायायलय में स्र्थीानान्तरिरत �र किदया गया तर्थीा सुनवाई �ी तितथिर्थी 2.2.2013 �े स्र्थीान �र किदनां� 17.1.2013 �र दी गयी इस�ी �ोई समन / सूचना अर्थीवा जान�ारी किनगरानी�ता+ �ो नहीं दी गयी।

¶75

7. यहकि� किवद्वान तहसीलदार सदर द्वारा हस्तान्तरिरत वाद �त्रावली में किनगरानी�ता+ �ो किबना �ोई समन / सूचना किदये किदनां� 21.1.2013 �ी तितथिर्थी किनयत �र दी गयी। 8. यहकि� किदनां� 21.1.2013 �ो तहसीलदार सदर , रायबरेली द्वारा ए��क्षीय रू� से �ेवल आ�लिU�ता+ �ी बहस सुन�र किहतवद्ध �क्ष�ार �ी भांतित व्यवहार �रते हुये किनगरानी�ता+ �ा नामान्तरण वाद किनरस्त �र किदया तर्थीा किव�क्षी �ी आ�लिU स्वी�ार �र लिलया।

¶76

9. यहकि� किवद्वान अवर न्यायालय द्वारा �ारिरत आदेश किदनां� 21.1.2013 किवतिध किवरुद्ध तथ्यों से �रे तर्थीा क्षेत्रातिध�ार से बाहर होने �े �ारण किनरस्त होने योग्य है।

¶77

:: प्रार्थी+ना ::

¶78

=======

¶79

अतः न्यायालय श्रीमान् जी से किनवेदन है कि� अवर न्यायालय �ी �त्रावली तलब �र�े उस�े �रीक्षणो�रान्त किनगरानी स्वी�ार �रते हुये अवर न्यायालय द्वारा �ारिरत प्रश्नगत आदेश किदनां� 21.1.2013 किनरस्त �रने �ी �ृ�ा �रें। अस्तु न्यायालय श्रीमान् जी से अकिग्रम किनवेदन यह भी है कि� दौरान किनगरानी अवर न्यायालय द्वारा �ारिरत प्रश्नगत आदेश किदनां� 21.1.2013 �ा किZयान्वयन व प्रभाव स्र्थीकिगत �रने �ी �ृ�ा �रें।

¶80

लखनऊ किदनां�ः - 23.01.13 अकिनल �ुमार सिंसह एडवो�ेट अतिधवक्ता किनगरानी�ता+ "

¶81

Paragraph no. 8 of the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶82

". यह कि� प्रतितवादी संख्या -1 ने फज1 तथ्यों �े आधार �र राजस्व अतिध�ारिरयों से साठ - गांठ �र�े अ�ने नाम �०�० -11 अंकि�त �रंवा लिलया सिजस�ी जान�ारी वादीगण �ो होने �र वादीगण द्वारा तहसील आ�र इन्तेखाब खतौनी हासिसल �ी तब वादीगण �ो जान�ारी हुई कि� वादीगण �े चाचा मृत� गो�ाल �े स्र्थीान �र जरिरये �०�० -11 सरजूदेई किवधवा गो�ाल अंकि�त हो गया र्थीा। वादी संख्या -1 वा�स घर आया और वादी संख्या -2 से उक्त बाबत बताया तब वादी संख्या -2 ने �हा कि� कि�ताजी �ा ए� बक्शा रखा है , चलो देखते हैं। कि�ता जी �े बक्से �ो खोल�र रखे �ागजात �ो देखा तो उसमें अन्य �ागजातों �े सार्थी ए� अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा किदनां� 2507-2003 किमला सिजस�े आधार �रं वादीगणों ने दालिखल खारिरज व गलत �०�० -11 �ो किनरस्त �रने हेतु प्रार्थी+ना - �त्र किदया जो नायब तहसीलदार ( दतिक्षणी ) �े यहाँ से

¶83

¶84

स्र्थीानान्तरिरत हो�र तहसीलदार महोदय �े यहाँ आयी , जहाँ �र तहसीलदार महोदय ने किबना वादीगण �ो सुने हुए वाद �ो ए��क्षीय रू� से किनर् ण ित �र किदया , सिजस�े किवरूद्ध माननीय अ�र आयुक्त लखनऊ मण्डल , लखनऊ में दालिखल �ी , सिजसमें अ�र आयुक्त महोदय द्वारा दौरान किनगरानी मौ�े �र यर्थीास्थिस्र्थीत बनाये रखे जाने �ा आदेश �ारिरत �र किदया। दौरान मु�दमा प्रतित�क्षी संख्या -1 �े हार्थी किबना �ब्जा किदये भूकिम हस्तान्तरण �रने �ी किफरा� में है , जो किवतिध - किवरूद्ध है और किनरस्त कि�ये जाने लाय� है।

¶85

Uptill this stage, the petitioners had not come with a case before any of the courts that they had not filed any copy of the unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 before the Tehsildar. For the first time, the plea or the ground was taken in the first appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment/order passed under Section 229-B of the Act, 1950 that they had filed only four documents before the Tehsildar. The relevant extract of the appeal preferred by the petitioner is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶86

" रेस्�ाण्डेण्ट् संख्या -1 �े �क्ष में दज+ कि�या गया उक्त अवैध इन्द् र ाज अ�ीलाण्ट द्वारा धारा -34 भू० रा० अ० �े तहत जरिरये अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा चैलेन्ज कि�या गया जो सुनवाई हेतु मुन्तकि�ल हो�र �े नायब तहसीलदार �तिVमी तहसील रायबरेली �े समक्ष गया। उक्त दालिखल खारिरज वाद मे अ�ीलाण्ट्स �ी ओर से �ुल चार प्र�त्र प्रस्तुत कि�ये गये र्थीे :--

¶87

01 इंतेखाब खतौनी खाता संख्या -30 फ० सन 1416-1421 ग्राम थिeबलामऊ

¶88

02 इंतेखाब खतौनी खाता संख्या -756 फ० सन 1414-1419 ग्राम कि�शुन�ुर रामचन्द्र

¶89

03 इंतेखाब खतौनी फ० सन 1414-1419 ग्राम कि�शुन�ुर रामचन्द्र

¶90

04 इंतेखाब खतौनी फ० सन 1404-1409 ग्राम थिeबलामऊ

¶91

उक्त प्र�त्र अ�ीलाण्ट्स �ी ओर से फेहरिरस्त किदनां� 04.08.2012 �ो समक्ष न्यायालय तहसीलदार रायबरेली अ�ीलाण्ट्स �ी ओर से प्रस्तुत कि�ये गये र्थीे। उक्त प्र�त्रो �े अतितरिरक्त अन्य �ोई भी प्र�त्र दालिखल खारिरज प्रार्थी+ना �त्र �े सार्थी अ�ीलाण्ट्स �ी ओर से न तो तहसीलदार न्यायालय �े समक्ष और न ही नायब तहसीलदार �तिVमी तहसीलदार रायबरेली �े समक्ष वाद मे अ�ीलाण्ट्स �ी ओर से प्रस्तुत कि�ये गये र्थीे। "

¶92

¶93

25. From the above mentioned relevant paragraphs quoted from the application, memo of revision and memo of appeal, it is clear that the petitioners had never ever taken this ground before any authority or the court that no unregistered Will was filed by the petitioners before the Tehsildar in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 2006.

¶94

The petitioners, when they had come to know that they would not succeed then for the first time in the first appeal had taken a case or ground that before the Tehsildar, no unregistered Will was filed and also mentioned four documents which were filed by the petitioners and produced another unregistered Will of the same date by rectifying the mistakes pointed out in the order of Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013. The relevant extract of the said order passed by the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013 is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶95

" मैंने आ�लिU�ता+ �े किवद्वान अतिधवक्ता �े त�M �ो सुना तर्थीा �त्रावली �ा सम्य� अनुशीलन कि�या। किवद्वान अतिधवक्ता �ा �र्थीन है कि� प्रश्नगत अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत जाली , फज1 �ूट रतिचत है। उन�ा यह भी �र्थीन है कि� वसीयत में किदखाया गया हासिसया गवाह �ी मृत्यु वसीयत किनष्�ादन �ी तितथिर्थी से �ूव+ हो चु�ी र्थ ी सिजस�ी किवरासत किद 04.1.xx �ो राजस्व अथिभलेखों में अंकि�त है। �त्रावली �े अवलो�न से स्�ष्ट है कि� वादी द्वारा अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा �ी eाया प्रतित , इन्तखाब खतौनी ग्राम थिeवलामऊ बाबत 1416-12 फ०खाता सं० 30, ग्राम कि�शुन�ुर रामचन्दर �ी खतौनी सन 1414-1xx फ० खाता संख्या 756 127, इन्तेखाब खतौनी ग्राम थिeवलामऊ सन 1404-1409 फ० खाता संख्या 24 दालिखल कि�या है। तर्थीा प्रार्थी+ना �त्र किवरुद्ध ��। किद० 5-3-04 तर्थीा प्रार्थी+ना �त्र स्र्थीगन दालिखल कि�या है। �त्रावली �र रतिक्षत अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत नामा / eायाप्रतित �े अवलो�न से स्�ष्ट है कि� उस �र वसीयत�ता+ �ा फोटो भी नहीं लगा है। दावे �ो साकिबत �रने �ा दातियत्व वादी �ो होता है वादी द्वारा न तो अब त� मूल वसीयत दालिखल �ी गयी है और न मृत� गो�ाल �ा मृत्यु प्रमाण �त्र ही दालिखल कि�या गया है। इससे मैं इस किनष्�र्ष+ �र �हुँचता हूँ। वादी अ�ने दावे / अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत �ी �ुकिष्ट न �रा�र जानबूझ�र न्यायालय से अनु�स्थिस्र्थीत हो गये सिजससे यही प्रतीत होता है प्रश्नगत अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत जाली एवं फज1 है। आ�लिU�ता+ श्रीमती सरजूदेई �ी आ�लिU किदनां� 29-11-12 स्वी�ार कि�ये जाने योग्य है।

¶96

आदशे

¶97

अतः आ�लिU�त्र1 श्रीमती सरजूदेई �ी आ�लिU किदनां� 29-11-12 स्वी�ार �ी जाती है। नामान्तरण प्रार्थी+ना �त्र साक्ष्यों द्वारा साकिबत न कि�ये जाने �े �ारण किनरस्त कि�या जाता है। �त्रावली बाद अन्य आवश्य� �ाय+वाही दालिखल दफ्तर हो। "

¶98

¶99

Even in the revisional order, there is a specific observation of the revisional authority that the petitioners had relied upon an unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 which had various discrepancies as pointed out by the Tehsildar even that was never disputed by the petitioners. The relevant extract of the revisional order is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶100

"3- किनगरानी�ता+गण �ी ओर से प्रस्तुत लिललिखत बहस में किनगरानी मेमो में वर् ण ित �र्थीनों �ो दोहराते हुए �हा गया कि� वादग्रस्त भूकिम �े मूल खातेदार गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू र्थीे , सिजन�े �ोई लड़�ा - लड़�ी नहीं र्थीे तर्थीा उन्होंने अ�ने जीवन�ाल में किदनां� 25.07 2003 �ो किनगरानी�ता+ �े �क्ष में ए� वसीयतनामा किनष्�ाकिदत �र किदया र्थीा। गो�ाल �ी किदनां� 16.11.2003 �ो मृत्यु हो जाने �े बाद किनगरानी�ता+गण ने वसीयतनामे �े आधार �र �रीक्षण न्यायालय में नामान्तरण वाद योसिजत कि�या , सिजसमें किव�क्षी द्वारा स्वयं �ो गो�ाल �ुत्र किबरजू �ी �त्नी बताते हुए ए� आ�लिU प्रस्तुत �ी गयी , जो नायब तहसीलदार ( �तिVमी ), रायबरेली �े समक्ष किवचाराधीन र्थीा। किव�क्षी द्वारा उ�सिजलातिध�ारी , सदर , रायबरेली �े न्यायालय में स्र्थीानान्तरण प्रार्थी+ना - �त्र प्रस्तुत �रने �र प्रश्नगत वाद �ो तहसीलवार , सदर , रायबरेली �े न्यायालय में स्र्थीानान्तरिरत कि�या गया। किनगरानी�ता+गण �ा �र्थीन है कि� अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा उसे किबना �ोई सूचना किदये ए��क्षीय रू� से प्रश्नगत नामान्तरण वाद किदनां� 21.01.2013 �ो किनरस्त �र किदया गया। उन�ा �र्थीन है कि� किनगरानी स्वी�ार �रते हुए अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय �ा प्रश्नगत आदेश किनरस्त कि�या जाय।

¶101

4- किव�क्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत लिललिखत बहस में मुख्य रू� से यह �हा गया है कि� किनगरानी�ता+गण द्वारा अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा किदनां� 25.07.2003 �े आधार �र मूल खातेदार �ी मृत्यु �े बाद लगभग 9 वर्षM �े बाद किदनां� 04.08.2012 �ो नामान्तरण वाद प्रस्तुत कि�या गया। उक्त वाद में इश्तेहार जारी होने �र सरजू देई द्वारा किदनां� 29.11.2012 �ो आ�लिU प्रस्तुत �ी गयी। प्रस्तुत वसीयत में प् र म �ृष्ठ �र वसीयत�ता+ व गवाहों �े हस्ताक्षर भी नहीं हैं तर्थीा वसीयत �े तर्थीा�थिर्थीत दूसरे गवाह जगदीश मौय+ �ुत्र रघुनन्दन गौय+ �ी मृत्यु वसीयत �ी तितथिर्थी से �ूव+ ही हो गयी र्थ ी । प्रस्तुत �ी गयी इसलिलए उक्त तितथिर्थी �े बाद प्रारस्थिम्भ� रू� से अ�ंजी�ृत फज1 �ूटरतिचत वसीयत �े आधार �र नामान्तरण वाद प्रस्तुत कि�या गया। उन�ा �र्थीन है कि� अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय �ा प्रश्नगत आदेश गुण - दोर्ष �े आधार �र �ारिरत कि�या गया है , जो �ूण+तया किवतिधसम्मत है। उन�े द्वारा 2000- आरडी - �ेज - 10, 1997- एएलआर - �ेज -448 तर्थीा 2012- आरएलटी - �ेज -561 व 2007 (103) आरडी - �ेज -48 �र मा० राजस्व �रिरर्षद एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा दी गयी किवतिध व्यवस्र्थीा �ा सन्दभ+ किदया गया।

¶102

5- अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय �े प्रश्नगत आदेश एवं �त्रावली �े अवलो�न से स्�ष्ट है कि� नामान्तरण न्यायालय द्वारा किनयमानुसार इश्तेहार जारी कि�ये गये , जो बाद तामील वा�स �त्रावली है। इस्तेहार जारी होने �े उ�रानत श्रीमती सरजू देई �त्नी गो�ाल द्वारा आ�लिU दालिखल �ी गयी। अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा �त्रावली �र रतिक्षत अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयतनामा �ा अवलो�न �र यह �ाया गया कि� वसीयत �र वसीयत�ता+ �ा फोटो नहीं लगा है। दावे �ो साकिबत �रने �ा दातियत्व वादी �ा होता है। वादी द्वारा न तो मूल वसीयत दालिखल �ी गयी और न ही मृत� गो�ाल �ा मृत्यु प्रमाण - �त्र दालिखल कि�या गया। इस प्र�ार वादी अ�ने दावे / अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत �ी �ुकिष्ट न �रा�र जानबूझ�र न्यायालय से अनु�स्थिस्र्थीत हो गये , सिजससे यह प्रतीत होता है कि� प्रश्नगत अ�ंजी�ृत वसीयत जाली एवं फज1 है। तद्नुसार अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा अ�ने आदेश किदनां� 21.01.2013 द्वारा आ�लिU�ता+ श्रीमती सरजू देई �ी आ�लिU �ो स्वी�ार कि�या गया तर्थीा नामान्तरण प्रार्थी+ना - �त्र साक्ष्यों द्वारा साकिबत न कि�ये जाने �े �ारण किनरस्त कि�या गया। अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय द्वारा �ारिरत प्रश्नगत आदेश �ूण+तया किवतिध , साक्ष्य एवं तथ्यों �र आधारिरत है , सिजसमें कि�सी प्र�ार �े हस्तक्षे� �ी आवश्य�ता नहीं है। अतएव किनगरानी बलहीन होने �े �ारण किनरस्त कि�ये जाने योग्य है।

¶103

आदशे

¶104

¶105

तद्नुसार किनगरानी बलहीन होने �े �ारण किनरस्त �ी जाती है। आदेश �ी ए� प्रतित सकिहत अधीनस्र्थी न्यायालय �ी �त्रावली वा�स भेजी जाये तर्थीा बाद आवश्य� �ाय+वाही इस न्यायालय �ी �त्रावली अथिभलेखागार में दालिखल - दफ्तर हो।

¶106

किदनां�ः 11-03-2014"

¶107

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Samrite Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in Manu/SC/0892/2012 has laid down some principles which would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the Court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of process of Court. The relevant extract of para no. 29 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶108

"29. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the Petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws which would help us in dealing with the present situation with greater precision. The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the Courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:

¶109

(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean hands'. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.

¶110

¶111

(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

¶112

(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.

¶113

(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.

¶114

(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

¶115

(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.

(vii) .......

(viii) ......

(emphasis supplied)

29. In view of the facts a nd circumstances of the present case, it is found that the petitioners had filed false affidavits before the courts just to grab the property of a widow lady and mislead the Courts at every stage, even in the present writ petition.

¶120

The petitioners are not only cheating or deceiving the widow lady that is the wife of Late Ram Gopal but also misleading the Courts and concealed the relevant facts by not enclosing the copy of revision.

¶121

Petitioners had filed the copy of unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 which was duly considered by the Tehsildar and pointed out the

¶122

¶123

shortcomings due to which it was not accepted while rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Petitioners in the revision had not taken this ground that they had not filed any unregistered Will or the unregistered Will which was filed by the petitioners is not the same which was referred in the order of Tehsildar. This shows that the second unregistered Will of the same date by rectifying all the short comings as pointed out by the Tehsildar is nothing but amounts to cheating, playing fraud, misleading the Courts and also amounts to abuse of process of the Court. The unregistered Will which was produced by the petitioners before the Tehsildar was not found to be acceptable by the Tehsildar then there is no question to prove the second unregistered Will prepared by the petitioner afterthought.

¶124

It is also the petitioners, who had not placed any document or application at the appellate stage for accepting the additional documents as an evidence by filing a second unregistered Will prepared afterthought of the same date under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C.

¶125

It was the duty of the petitioners to prove the unregistered Will which they had not even tried since it appears that the petitioners were aware that the unregistered Will was not genuine and they would not able to prove it.

¶126

In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, it is found that there is no illegality in the impugned orders dated 28.03.2024 passed by the respondent no. 1, impugned order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the respondent no. 2, impugned order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the respondent no. 5, impugned order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 and judgment and order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the respondent no. 5, thus, no interference is called for.

¶127

Writ petition is devoid of merits hence, dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand), in view of their conduct which resulted in misuse of process of law. The amount of cost is to be deposited before the

¶128

¶129

Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of three months from today. Failing which, the Senior Registrar is directed to require the authorities to recover the same as arrears of land revenue.

¶130

Order Date :- 17.05.2024

¶131

Ashish

¶132

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others v. Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj Thru. Its Member Judicial and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Shakya Vs Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman and Another

Harish Chandra Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation , Sultanpur and Others

Ram Pratap @ Ram Pratap Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Ram Prakash and Another Vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Kalpram Yadav @ Kalapram Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Shravasti and Others

Shashi Vikram Singh and Another Vs District Magistrate, Sultanpur and Others