BAI Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the mother of late Kali Charan, Smt Bai w/o Chedi the plaintiff in a suit under Section 229-B of the UP. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 seeking a declaration that she is the sole successor to the holding of her son and not the respondent No. 1, Nirmala, who claims herself to be the wife of late Kali Charan.

(2.) The dispute began after the death of late Kali Charan. Chhedi Lal, who is the father of late Kali Charan, was the recorded tenure holder, and after his death. Kali Charan came to be recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1, Nirmala that she is the widow of late Kali Charan and was, therefore, entitled to succeed to the holdings, and accordingly her name came to be mutated in the revenue records.

(3.) The petitioner Smt. Bai (since deceased) contested the said mutation proceedings but remained unsuccessful up to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 18437 of 2005 that had been filed by her substituted heir Bhonda. This Court while refusing to interfere with thamutation orders observed that the orders passed in mutation proceedings being summary in nature, would not come in the way of the regular proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.R Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner thereafter, filed a regular suit under Section 229-B seeking declaration of her rights on the ground that she being the lawful heir was entitled to succeed to the holdings of late Kali Charan and that the respondent No. 1, Nirmala was not the lawfully wedded wife of her son and, therefore, was not entitled to succeed to the holding. Nirmala during the pendency of the proceedings sold the same to respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who are respondents herein and it is they, who are contesting the present writ petition. The original petitioner, Smt. Bai also died during the pendency of these proceedings on 22.11.2003 and she is represented by petitioner No. 1/1, Bhonda claiming himself to be her nephew and to have succeeded to the property under a registered Will dated 4.4.2002. The substitution of the petitioner and impleadment of the respondent-vendees were allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.5.2005.