RAM LOCHAN Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S.C. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri R.C. Singh, Counsel for respondent No. 3. Written argument filed on behalf of the petitioners, is taken on record.

(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata No. 85 in Village Premwalia which included Plot Nos. 120/121/122/123/124. In the basic year records, the petitioners were recorded as the tenure holders of the disputed Khata. The respondent No. 3 filed objections under section 9 of the Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') claiming to be co-tenure holder of the disputed Khata. It was alleged in the objections that Tengary was the original tenure holder of the disputed plots. Tengary had two sons Sahsi and Amrit. Mangaru was the son of Sahsi while Ramdihal was the son of Amrit. Petitioner No. 1 and Jeeta were the sons of Mangaru. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of Jeeta. Phool Jhariya was the wife/widow of Ramdihal. It was stated in the objections that respondent No. 3 is the daughter of Ramdihal and Phool Jhariya. The respondent No. 3 alleged that after the death of Tengary, Sahsi had fraudulently got his name recorded in the revenue records excluding Amrit i.e. grand father of respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 as the grand daughter of Amrit and the daughter of Phool Jhariya and Ramdihal was entitled to be recorded as a co-tenure holder of the disputed plots after the death of Phool Jhariya. Phool Jhariya had died on 13.1.1968. The respondent No. 3, apart from claiming co-tenancy on the basis of succession, being the daughter of Ramdihal and the grand daughter of Amrit also claimed co-tenancy on the basis of a Will dated 21.2.1957 executed in her favour by Phool Jhariya, the widow of Ramdihal. On the aforesaid objections of respondent No. 3, Case No. 1630 was registered in the Court of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as, 'C.O.') under section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953.

(3.) The petitioners filed their reply denying that respondent No. 3 was the daughter of Ramdihal and Phool Jhariya and the grand daughter of Amrit. However, the relationship between Phool Jhariya, Ramdihal, Amrit, Sahsi, Mangaru and the petitioners and their relationship with Tengary was admitted by the petitioners. Before the consolidation authorities, the petitioners denied the claim of respondent No. 3 on the ground that she was not the daughter of Phul Jhariya and therefore, not entitled to succeed to her property and be recorded as a co-tenure holder of the disputed plots.