BAJ RANGI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner Baj Rangi had claimed cotenancy right with his alleged brother Ram Narain on the allegations that both were sons of Daulat in the pedigree given in the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The consolidation authorities have negatived the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to establish that he was the legitimate son of Daulat. Aggrieved by the judgments of the consolidation authorities the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has challenged the judgments of the consolidation authorities.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that it has been established beyond shadow of doubt that the petitioner was born during the valid wedlock between his mother and Daulat, hence it was conclusively proved that the petitioner was son of Daulat. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 112 of the Evidence Act and has placed reliance upon a large number of rulings reported in AIR 1927 Mad 361 Narayana Nair v. Bhargavi Amma, AIR 1930 Mad 194, M. Kanniappan v. Kullammal AIR 1937 Lah 266 Hidayat Ullah v. Mohammad Ali AIR 1954 SC 176, Venka-teswarlu v. Venkatanarayana, AIR 1971 SC 2352 Perumal v. Ponnu swami and AIR 1942 Oudh 143 Mt. Massorma Begum v. Mohammad Raza,

(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that all the consolidation authorities have recorded categorical findings of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was legitimate son of Daulat, hence his claim about co-tenancy with contesting opposite party No. 4 in the present writ petition has rightly been negatived. It has been stressed by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party that in the circumstances of the present case it has been established that the petitioner's father Daulat had no access with the petitioner's mother when the petitioner was conceived, hence the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities cannot be characterised as perverse Or without any basis in evidence. Thus it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgments in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court.