GEETA PALIWAL Vs. SITARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent, heard finally. The present petition is preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent no.1 submitted an application for mutation in respect of the properties situate at Sironj, the description of which is pleaded in the petition. Original owner was late Durgashankar who had 2.805 hectares in his name out of total 3.960 hectares. Petitioner no.1 is wife of deceased Durgashankar and petitioner nos.2 to 5 are his children.

(3.) Respondent no.1, on the basis of an alleged Will dtd. 5/6/1999 claiming the property to be bequeathed in his name by late Durgashankar, moved an application under Sec. 109 and 110 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for brevity, "the Code") before Naib Tahsildar, Sironj, district Vidisha. As per the contents of Will, respondent no.1 and late Durgashankar were in acquaintance and deceased had some property as referred above at Sironj and he was the original resident of Jhalawad (Rajasthan). Because of the services he rendered to deceased, Will was executed in favour of respondent no.1 by deceased and therefore mutation application was preferred.