RUCHITA AGNIHOTRI Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 9/10/2025 (annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chattarpur, in Case No.1127/Appeal/2024, whereby the order dtd. 24/1/2025 (annexure P/5) passed by the S.D.O. Chhattarpur and order dtd. 11/11/2024 (annexure P/4) passed by the Tahsildar have been set aside.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for mutation has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of one deceased Deependra, which has been allowed vide order dtd. 11/11/2024 passed by the Naib Tahsildar (annexure P/4). The said order was challenged by the respondent in First appeal, which was dismissed by order dtd. 24/1/2025 (annexure P-5). Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 24/1/2025, the respondent preferred second appeal, which was allowed by setting aside the orders dtd. 11/11/2024 and 24/1/2025, passed by the Naib Tahsildar and the S.D.O. respectively.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appellate court has decided the appeal beyond its jurisdiction. The question of succession is not to be decided by the revenue authorities, which is required to be decided by the civil court. The second appellate authority, while applying the provision of Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956') has held that wife and the surviving mother are equally entitled of the estate of deceased Deependra. Further, that the disputed plot had been purchased by deceased Deependra, which was his self-acquired property and governed by Sec. 8 of the Act of 1956. It is observed that in Schedule appended to the Act of 1956, in list of Class I heirs entries of wife and mother find place, as Deependra died issueless. Thus, applying the analogy has quashed the orders holding that the plot be again recorded back in the name of deceased Deependra.