BADRI PRASAD Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri V.S.Tripathi, learned counsel representing the respondent nos.5 and 6.

(2.) Subject matter of dispute in this petition relates to title in respect of basic year khata nos.391 and 392. Khata no.391 in the basic year was recorded in the name of Sunder Dei and Hausila Prasad whereas khata no.392 was recorded exclusively in the name of Sunder Dei.

(3.) Sunder Dei is said to have died on 12.12.1990, which fact is, however, being denied by learned counsel for the petitioners. On the death of Sunder Dei, three sets of objections were filed claiming right and title over the property in dispute. The first claim put forth under Sec. 9-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was by respondent nos.5 and 6 stating therein that Sunder Dei had executed a will deed in respect of property in dispute in favour of Rajrani, who was her daughter and respondent nos.5 and 6 being sons of Rajrani are thus entitled to succeed the property on the basis of will dated 30.01.1991 executed by Sunder Dei in favour of Rajrani. Another set of objections were filed by Ram Pragat and Ram Lakhan claiming the right over the property in dispute on the basis of some will, however, since Ram Pragat and Ram Lakhan after the order of Consolidation Officer did not pursue the matter and contest the same, as such so far as their rights as claimed by them are concerned in the land in dispute, this Court need not go into their claim.