RAM AUTAR Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is the real brother of the petitioner, who has also set up his claim of succession under the disputed Will.

(2.) THE facts shorn of details are that the holding admittedly belonged to Shri Sukhlal. After his death three of his sons namely Basu Deo, Ram Deo and Ram Avtar stood recorded according to the irrespective shares. THE widow of Sukhlal, Smt. Chameli Devi was alive at that time. Ram Deo, the second son of Sukhlal, predeceased his mother Chameli Devi. It is also not disputed that Smt. Urvashi, the respondent No. 3 is the widow of Ram Deo. Upon the death of Sukhlal the property was succeeded to 1/3rd each by all the three sons. However, Ram Deo died issueless and his holding was inherited by the mother of Ram Deo and his widow in equal shares. Smt. Chameli Devi mother of Ram Deo died on 2nd March, 1993. THEreafter, the dispute arose with regard to the property, which has reverted to the mother Smt. Chameli Devi on account of the death of Ram Deo.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the succession ought to have been concluded on the basis of devolution of interest as per Section 171 and not as per the Section 172 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.