PREHLAD SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2-Yuvraj Singh are brothers of respondent No. 4. The dispute in the present petition is in respect of Mutation No. 163 dtd. 6/4/2016 attested in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and proforma respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against Mutation No. 163 before the appellate authority in the month of December-2023 along with application seeking condonation of delay by stating that the petitioner in connivance with the proforma respondent No. 1-Tehsildar, Samba got the aforesaid mutation attested at her back by virtue of which she was held entitled to less than actual share, which she otherwise was entitled to along with petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2. It was asserted by the respondent No. 4 that the proforma respondent No. 1 knowingly that she was entitled to equal share in the estate, without affording any opportunity of hearing to her, attested the mutation impugned.

(2.) It was stated by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner had filed a suit against her and proforma respondent No. 2 and when she received the copy of the plaint and Mutation No. 163 dtd. 6/4/2016, she came to know that the Mutation Officer had wrongly attested the mutation.

(3.) The petitioner objected to the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 3 by filing response to the appeal stating therein that after the demise of Rukmani Devi, the property was inherited by the petitioner and proforma respondent No. 2 in equal shares and the share of respondent No. 4 was one-eighth. It was further stated that the appellant has not only disposed of the land comprising survey No. 54 but also survey No. 80 measuring 1 Kanal in favour of Pooja Devi W/o. Rajeshwar Singh and Rajni Devi w/o. Darshan Singh, but this fact has not been disclosed by the appellant-respondent No. 4 herein in appeal before the respondent No. 3. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 had levelled no allegations at the time of getting the Fard Intikhab for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of Pooja Devi, Rajni Devi and Soma Devi and she herself executed and got the sale deed registered in favour of aforesaid vendees and the sale deed was executed only on the basis of Mutation No. 163.