MADHURI DEVI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

(2.) THE petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act') for a declaration to the effect that the respondent No. 6 plaintiff be declared to be the successor of the holding in dispute that was recorded in the name of late Jagdeo.

(3.) THE clear case, therefore, setup was that Chhote Lai was the natural son of Mahavir, even though, Jagdeo after arrival of Chhote Lai had looked after him and had also extended certain benefits including the construction of house and purchase of property in his name. Another objection taken by Jagdeo was that consolidation operations have intervened and Chhote Lai has never claimed his title separately and as such any such plea through a suit under Section 229-B would be barred. It was further agitated by Jagdeo that the family register that was set up by Chhote Lai did not contain the correct entires and a photo-stat copy had been produced, which was inadmissible in evidence and otherwise had not been proved. THE suit was decreed.