JAGDISH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Radha Rani Sharma for the respondent no. 6 and perused the records. A short reply to the supplementary affidavit has been filed today by the petitioner which is taken on record.

(2.) These proceedings arise out of a matter under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 in relation to mutation. The petitioner is claiming title over the land on the basis of an unregistered will. His name was mutated. The respondent no. 6 also preferred an objection contending that she is the wife of the deceased tenure holder, namely, late Hari Shanker.

(3.) The petitioner disputed the marital status of the respondent no. 6 and also led evidence in support of the will set up by him. The Tehsildar believed the witnesses to the will and rejected the contention of the respondent no. 6 after having made a spot inspection of the village and having taken the statement of some of the villagers. This procedure was additionally adopted by the Tehsildar to reject the claim of the respondent no. 6.