REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Amit Dixit Appellant

V/S

STATE OF U. P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JAIPAL VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
BINDESHWARI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR RAJBHAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAFIQUE VS. KHATOON BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
BHIMABAI MAHADEO KAMBEKAR VS. ARTHUR IMPORT AND EXPORT COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
BALWANTSINGH VS. DAULAT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NARASAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
FAQRUDDIN DEAD VS. TAJUDDIN DEAD [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN PRASAD AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. VASAVI CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. [REFERRED TO]
CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE VS. M PAPAIAH [REFERRED TO]
GURU AMARJIT SINGH VS. RATTAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KESHAV RAM [REFERRED TO]
SAWARNI VS. INDER KAUR [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
HARISH CHANDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 5 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH KUMAR JUNEJA VS. ADDL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL MORADABAD DIVISION [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,AURANGABAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
T. RAVI & ANR. VS. B. CHINNA NARASIMHA [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD PRADHAN VS. SONU KUMHAR [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KAUR VS. DARSHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KALAWATI V. BOARD OF REVENUE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ALLADIN V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7 and Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.

(2.) One Mewa Dixit alias Mewa Prasad was "bhumidhar" of certain agricultural land and he died on 10/5/2003. It is stated that mutation proceedings were instituted and contested on the basis of two Wills allegedly executed by Mewa Prasad. The case of the petitioner is that Mewa Prasad executed Will in favour of mother of the petitioner on 12/8/1999 whereas the case of the private respondents is that the said Will is not genuine, rather, manufactured. The only Will executed by Mewa Dixit was dtd. 16/11/1998 in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 who are daughters of the testator.

(3.) The petitioner applied for mutation on the basis of alleged Will dtd. 12/8/1999 and the Tehsildar by order dtd. 28/8/2008 directed making of entry in his name. Needless to say that petitioner is son of Pushpa Devi in whose favour the Will of 1999 is alleged to have been executed. The daughters of Mewa Dixit challenged the order of Tehsildar in appeal. The appeal was allowed by order dtd. 9/1/2009 and the order of Tehsildar was set aside and direction was issued that in place of Mewa Dixit, names of his daughters i.e. respondent nos.4 and 5 be recorded on the basis of registered Will dtd. 16/11/1998. The petitioner filed revision against the said order which was dismissed by order dtd. 2/4/2009.

Click here to view full judgment.

AMIT DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U. P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address