# Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr v. Board of Revenue & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1340
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-11
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 47402 of 2012
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kapil-ram-pandey-anr-v-board-of-revenue-anr-51805
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-dispute
over
property
ownership based on two conflicting willsA registered will dated 19.02.2002 in
favor of the petitioners-An unregistered
will dated 02.03.2002 in favour of the
both the petitioners and respondent no.2The tehsildar ruled in favor of the
registered will rejecting the unregistered
will-The SDM dismissed the respondent
no.'s2
appeal-the
board
of
revenue
reversed
the
decision
allowing
the
unregistered will-The court upheld the
Tehsildar's original order favoring the
registered will and set aside the Board of
4 All. Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Anr.
1341
Revenue's decision-under section 92 of
the Indian Evidence Act, a registered
document cannot be overridden by an
unregistered one.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sub-section (1) of the Section 76 of the
Code. Therefore, both the impugned orders
deserve to be quashed and the case of the
petitioner deserves to be considered in the
light of the provisions as afore-quoted."

12. In the instant matter, the plot in
question was recorded as banjar before
making allotment in favour of petitioners'
father, which is not covered under Section 77
of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 as such, right
of the petitioners to be recorded as bhumidhar
with transferable right in respect to plot in
question cannot be rejected in any manner.

13. The perusal of the revenue entry
as well as the order passed by Nayb
Tehsildar/Sub-Divisional
Officer
fully
demonstrate that after grant of lease in favour
of petitioners' father in the year 1973,
petitioners' father was initially recorded as
sirdar and later on, he was recorded as
bhumidhar with non-transferable right. The
period of ten years from the date of giving
right to the petitioners' father as bhumidhar
with non-transferable right had already
completed as such, petitioners' father was
entitled to be recorded as bhumidhar with
transferable right, but authority has illegally
ordered to record the name of petitioners
father as asami (class-3 category) in respect
to the plot in question.

14. Considering the entire facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case,
the
impugned order dated 26.12.1989 passed
by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, order dated
08.05.1997
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner
and
the
order
dated
01.03.2017 passed by Board of Revenue
cannot be sustained in the eye of law as
such, the same are hereby set aside.

15. The writ petition stands
allowed.
16.

Respondent
No.
2/SubDivisional Magistrate, Chunar, District
Mirzapur, is directed to take immediate
steps for recording the name of the
petitioners as bhumidhar with transferable
right in respect to plot in question within
period of six weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
before him as more than 48 years period
have passed from the date of making
allotment of the plot in question in favour
of petitioners' father.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1340
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 47402 of 2012

Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Board of Revenue & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anil Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Tarun Gaur(S.C.), Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
Sri S.S. Singh, Sri Shri Ram Pandey

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-dispute
over
property
ownership based on two conflicting willsA registered will dated 19.02.2002 in
favor of the petitioners-An unregistered
will dated 02.03.2002 in favour of the
both the petitioners and respondent no.2The tehsildar ruled in favor of the
registered will rejecting the unregistered
will-The SDM dismissed the respondent
no.'s2
appeal-the
board
of
revenue
reversed
the
decision
allowing
the
unregistered will-The court upheld the
Tehsildar's original order favoring the
registered will and set aside the Board of
4 All. Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Anr.
1341
Revenue's decision-under section 92 of
the Indian Evidence Act, a registered
document cannot be overridden by an
unregistered one.(Para 1 to 15)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue & ors. (2022)
155 RD 169

2. Rampal Vs Board of Revenue U.P. & ors.
(2010) ILR 3 Alld. 1298

3. Sahed Jan @ Bonde & ors. Vs Board of
Revenue U.P. at Lko & ors. (2004)96 RD 656

4. Sardul Rajan & ors. Vs DDC Mau & ors. RD
(2015) (129) 495.

5. S. Saktivel (Dead) by LRs. Vs M. Venugopal
Pillai & ors.(2000)91 RD 615

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 and Sri Tarun Gaur,
learned standing counsel for the staterespondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
one Bakunth Ram Pandey, had two sons,
namely, Raghunath Pandey and Ishwar
Prasad Pandey. Raghunath Pandey died
issuless and Ishwar Prasad Pandey had
three sons, namely, Raj Kishor Pandey,
Kapil Ram Pandey and Brijesh Ram
Pandey. Kapil Ram Pandey and Brijesh
Ram Pandey are petitioner nos. 1 & 2 in the
instant petition and Meera Pandey, widow
of Raj Kishor Pandey is respondent no.2 in
the instant petition. A registered will deed
is alleged to be executed in favour of the
petitioners by Raghunath Pandey on
19.2.2002. Another unregistered will deed
was alleged to be executed on 2.3.2002 in
favour of respondent no.2 as well as
petitioners by Raghunath Pandey. The
property of Raghunath Pandey was situated
in two villages, namely, Balwaniya and
Lohari. A mutation application was filed on
behalf of the petitioners under Section 34
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 on the
basis of the registered will deed dated
19.2.2002 in respect to the property
situated in the aforementioned two villages,
accordingly, two cases were registered
which were numbered as Case Nos. 469 &
896
before
the
Tehsildar.
Mutation
application under Section 34 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 were also filed by
respondent No. 2 on the basis of her
unregistered will deed dated 2.3.2002
which were also registered as Case Nos.
581 & 582 before the Tehsildar. All the
aforementioned
four
cases
were
consolidated and heard together. The
Tehsildar vide order dated 25.3.2004
recorded a finding that will deed executed
on 19.2.2002 is fully proved, as such, the
petitioners are entitled to be recorded in
place of deceased Raghunath Pandey and
claim set up by respondent no.2 on the
basis of unregistered will deed is liable to
be rejected. The order dated 17.6.2002
passed on the basis of Pa Ka-11, recording
the name of Ishwar Prasad Pandey (father
of petitioners) has been set aside. Against
the order of Tehsildar dated 25.3.2004,
Appeal No.13 of 2003-04 was filed before
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
by
respondent no.2 under Section 210 of the
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 which was
heard and dismissed vide order dated
29.4.2004.
Against
the
order
dated
29.4.2004, respondent no.2 filed revision
under Section 219 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 before the Board of
Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow which was
registered as Case No.112/L.R./2003-04.
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated
28.7.2005 allowed the revision setting aside
the order dated 29.4.2004 passed by
Tahasildar as well as order dated 25.3.2004,
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
ordered and to record the name of
respondent no.2 as well as petitioners on
the basis of unregistered will deed dated
2.3.2002. The petitioners challenged the
order dated 28.7.2005 passed by respondent
no.1/Board of Revenue through Writ
Petition No.59259 of 2005 which was
allowed vide order dated 29.8.2011 setting
aside the order of respondent no.1/Board of
Revenue dated 28.7.2005 and the matter
was remanded back before the Board of
Revenue to decide the revision afresh. In
pursuance of the remand order passed by
this Court on 29.8.2011, revision was heard
afresh
by
respondent
no.1/Board
of
Revenue and respondent no.1 has again
allowed the revision vide order dated
10.7.2012, setting aside the order dated
29.4.2004 and 25.3.2004 as well as directed
the authorities to record the name of
respondent no.2 along with petitioners on
the basis of will deed dated 2.3.2002.
Hence, this writ petition, challenging the
order dated 10.7.2012 passed by respondent
No.1/Board of Revenue.

3. This Court vide order dated
17.9.2012 entertained the matter and issued
notice to respondent no.2. This Court vide
subsequent order dated 4.4.2016 further
granted time to the counsel for the private
respondent no.2 to file counter affidavit and
as an interim measure, directed the
authorities not to create 3rd party right in
respect to the property in question.

4.

In
pursuance
of
the
aforementioned
orders,
stay
vacation
application along with counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 on
24.11.2021 and the petitioners have filed
their rejoinder affidavit also on 13.1.2022.

5. Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Tehsildar has rightly
allowed the mutation application filed on
behalf of the petitioners on the basis of
registered will deed executed on 19.2.2002
and rejected the claim of respondent no.2
set up on the basis of subsequent
unregistered will deed dated 2.3.2002. He
submitted that the Tehsildar has rightly
exercised the jurisdiction under Section 34
of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 against
which the aggrieved party can avail the
remedy of regular court rather to contest
the mutation proceeding before the court
exercising the summary jurisdiction. He
further submitted that the Tehsildar has
properly
considered
the
evidence
of
marginal witness of the registered will deed
and found that the registered will deed was
executed in accordance with the provisions
of the Indian Evidence Act and the Indian
Succession Act. He also submitted that
against the earlier order of the Board of
Revenue passed in favour of respondent
no.2, the writ petition filed by the
petitioners was allowed and the matter was
remanded back to decide the revision
afresh but the revisional court has again
exercised the revisional jurisdiction in
arbitrary manner by which the right set up
on the basis of the subsequent unregistered
will deed has been accepted and the claim
set up on the basis of earlier registered will
deed has been rejected. He also submitted
that the registered document cannot be
substituted by unregistered document. He
further submitted that Raghunath Pandey
expired on 14.3.2002 and unregistered will
deed was alleged to be executed on
2.3.2002 as such the unregistered will deed
deemed to be suspicious in view of the
health condition of Raghunath Pandey at
4 All. Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Anr.
1343
the relevant point of time. He also
submitted that the impugned revisional
order be set aside and the order passed by
the Tehsildar dated 25.3.2004 be affirmed.

6. On the other hand, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent no. 2 submitted that the
Board of Revenue has exercised the
revisional jurisdiction in accordance with
law for directing to record the names of the
petitioners as well as respondent no.2 on
the basis of unregistered will deed dated
2.3.2002, setting aside the order of
Tehsildar
and
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate. He further submitted that in the
subsequent unregistered will deed dated
2.3.2002, Raghunath Pandey has cancelled
the earlier will deed dated 19.2.2002,
supported
by
reason
as
such,
the
subsequent unregistered will deed executed
on 2.3.2002 cannot be doubted in any
manner. He also submitted that due to
health condition of Raghunath Pandey, the
unregistered will deed was thumb marked
and the reason has been assigned in the will
deed that he is not in a position to make his
signature over the will deed in question. He
also submitted that the will deed dated
2.3.2002 was the second and the last will
deed executed in favour of respondent no.2
along with the petitioners, as such, the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Board of
Revenue is in the interest of justice which
requires no interference by this Court. He
also submitted that the will deed dated
2.3.2002 was proved according to the
provisions contained under Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act, as such, the order
passed
by
respondent
no.1/Board
of
Revenue for recording the name on the
basis of subsequent unregistered will deed
dated 2.3.2002 was in accordance with law.
He also submitted that as per the crossexamination of the marginal witness of the
will deed dated 19.2.2002, it is established
that Raghunath Pandey had no knowledge
that in the will deed dated 19.2.2002, there
is no mention of the name of respondent
no.2/Meera Pandey along with petitioners.
He submitted that the instant writ petition
arises out of mutation proceeding, as such,
the same is not maintainable and petitioners
should avail remedy before the regular
court for declaration of their right. He
further placed reliance upon the judgment
of this Court reported in Kalawati Vs.
Board of Revenue and others 2022 (155)
RD 169, Rampal Vs. Board of Revenue
U.P & Ors. (2010) ILR 3 Alld. 1298,
Sahed Jan @ Bonde and others Vs.
Board of Revenue U.P at Lucknow and
others 2004 (96) RD 656 and Sardul
Rajan and others Vs. Deputy Director of
Consolidation Mau and others RD 2015
(129) 495.

7. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

8. There is no dispute about the
fact that in respect to the property of
Raghunath Pandey, two claims were set up
by the petitioners as well as by respondent
no.2, one claim was set up by the
petitioners on the basis of registered will
deed executed on 19.2.2002 by Raghunath
Pandey and another claim was set up by
respondent
no.2
on
the
basis
of
unregistered will deed dated 2.3.2002
executed by Raghunath Pandey. There is
also no dispute about the fact that the
Tehsildar after considering the claim of
both the parties, directed to record the
name of the petitioners on the basis of
registered will deed executed on 19.2.2002
and rejected the claim of respondent no.2
set up on the basis of subsequent
unregistered
will
deed
executed
on
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2.3.2002. There is also no dispute about the
fact that the appeal filed by respondent no.2
was dismissed but in revision the Board of
Revenue has set aside the order of the
Tehsildar as well as that of the S.D.M. in
appeal and directed to record the name of
respondent no.2 as well as petitioners on
the basis of subsequent unregistered will
deed dated 2.3.2002.

9. In order to appreciate the
controversy, perusal of the relevant portion
of the order of the Tehsildar dated
25.3.2004 will be relevant which is quoted
hereunder:-

न्यायािय तिसीिदार-घोरािि,
जनपद सोनभर
1- िाद संख्या-469, अन्तगजत िारा
34/भू०रा०अधि०
कवपि राम, बृजेि राम प्रधत रघुनार्थ
प्रसाद बाित मौजा िोिामण्डी।
2- िाद संख्या 896, अन्तगजत िारा 34/
भू०रा०अधि०
कवपिराम, बृजेि राम प्रधत रघुनार्थ
प्रसाद बाित मौजा बेििधनयां।
3- िाद संख्या 581, अन्तगजत िारा 34/
भू०रा०अधि०
मीरा पाण्डेय, कवपि राम, बृजेि राम
प्रधत रघुनार्थ प्रसाद बाित मौजा िोिा मण्डी।
4- िाद संख्या 582, अन्तगजत िारा 34/
भू०रा०अधि०
मीरा पाण्डेय, कवपि राम, बृजेि राम
प्रधत रघुनार्थ प्रसाद बाित मौजा बेििधनया।
सिजप्रर्थम पंजीकृत िसीयत 19.2.2002
का परीक्षण हकया जा रिा िै। इस िसीयत पर
चस्पा की गई फोर्ो को स्ि० रघुनार्थ प्रसाद
पाण्डेय के फोर्ो के रूप में दोनों िाधसया के गिािों
ने स्िीकार हकया िै। मीरा पाण्डेय की ओर से यि
प्रधतिाद निीं हकया गया िै हक यि फोर्ो रघुनार्थ
प्रसाद पाण्डेय की निीं िै। यिी व्यवि हदनांकः
19.02.2002 को उपधनबन्िक घोरािि के यिां
उपम्स्र्थत िोकर िधसयत का धनस्पादन सुन
समझ कर स्िीकार हकया िै, जैसा हक
उपधनबन्िक के पृष्ठांकर हदनांकः 19.2.2002 से
स्पष्ट िै। इस पंजीकृत िसीयत के िाधसया के दो
गिाि िैं एक ईश्वर प्रसाद तर्था दूसरे जय प्रसाद
पाठक। दोनों ने न्यायािय में उपम्स्र्थत िोकर
िसीयत के धनस्पादन को स्िीकार हकया िै। ईश्वर
प्रसाद जो हक मृतक के नौसधगजक धनकर्तम
िाररस तर्था कवपि राम ि बृजेि राम के वपता िैं,
के ब्यान को एक क्षण के धिए अिग भी कर दें तो
जय प्रसाद पाठक ने अपने बयान में किा िै हक "
िकीि सािब सुदा िसीयत को पढकर सुनाए।
सुनने ि समझने के बाद रघुनार्थ अपना धन०अं०
िगाए। अं० धन० मेरी ि ईश्वर प्रसाद की
उपम्स्र्थधत में रघुनार्थ ने अपना धन०अं० िगाए।
रघुनार्थ की उपम्स्र्थधत में मैं और ईश्वर प्रसाद
पाण्डेय ने बतौर गिाि अपना०-अपना िस्ताक्षर
बनाया। िसीयतनामा में धचपकाए गए फोर्ो को
देखकर गिाि ने बताया हक यि फोर्ो रघुनार्थ
प्रसाद पाण्डेय पुर्त्र बैकुण्ठ प्रसाद पाण्डेय का िै।"
इस प्रकार गिाि ने एक िी सीहर्ंग में एक दूसरे
की उपम्स्र्थधत में एक दूसरे को िसीयत पर
िस्ताक्षर/अं०धन० िगाने की बात स्िीकार की िै।
इससे समपवत्त अन्तण अधिधनयम की िारा 3 के
अनुसार िसीयत के अर्ेसर्ेिन प्रमाम्णत िोते िैं।
4 All. Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Anr.
1345
अब इसी जय प्रसाद पाठक के बयान के
प्रधत परीक्षण के अंि को देखते िैं, इसमे गिाि
ने किा हक " रघुनार्थ पाण्डेय को मैनें देखा िै। िे
चिने हफरने में िसीयत धिखने के हदन
पूणजतया असमर्थज र्थे। ठेिा से िादकर आए र्थे।
म्जतना देर तक िसीयत की धिखी पढी िुयी
रघुनार्थ उसी ठेिे पर सोये रिे। धिखा पढी के
बाद िमने या मसविदाकताज द्वारा उनसे न तो
कुि पूिा गया और न िी उन्िें पढकर सुनाया
गया। िसीयत धिखने के बाद उसी ठेिे पर िे
जाया गया उसी जगि उनका धन०अं० िगिाया
गया।" उस बयान में भी गिाि ने रघुनार्थ को
धन०अं० िगाने की बात स्िीकार की िै, परन्तु
अपने मुख्य परीक्षा के ब्यान से िर्कर एक
तथ्य यि भी किा िै हक रघुनार्थ चिने हफरने में
असमर्थज र्थे तर्था उनसे कुि पूिा निीं गया और
न िसीयत पढकर सुनायी गयी। इस समबन्ि में
उपधनबन्िक का पृष्ठांकन हदनांक 19.2.2002
जो हक उनके द्वारा अपने पदीय राजकीय
दाधयत्ि के तित हकया गया िै मित्िपूणज िै,
इसमें उपधनबन्िक घोरािि ने स्पष्ट रूप से यि
धिखा िै हक " इस पर्त्र के विषय ि समपादन को
सुनसमझ कर श्री रघुनार्थ प्रसाद उि ने
स्िीकार हकया" इससे स्पष्ट िै हक िसीयत के
धनस्पादन को श्री रघुनार्थ प्रसाद को सुनाया ि
समझाया गया र्था और धनस्पादन को श्री
रघुनार्थ प्रसाद को सुनाया ि समझाया गया र्था
और उन्िोनें उसे स्िीकार करते िुए धनस्पाहदन
हकया िै। मैं कवपि राम के विद्वान के अधिििा
के इस कर्थन से सिमत िूाँ हक गिाि जय प्रसाद
पाठक ने प्रधतपरीक्षण में दबाि में कुि िर्कर
हर्प्पणी की िै, परन्तु रघुनार्थ प्रसाद के धन०अं०
िगाने की बात को स्िीकार हकया िै। इस प्रकार
गिाि मूि रूप से धनस्पादन को स्िीकार करते
हदखता िै। िसीयत भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिधनयम
की िारा 68 के अनुसार सावबत िै।
सुबसे मुख्य बात यि िै हक मीरा
पाण्डेय के पास में अपंजीकृत िसीय 2.3.2002
में कवपि ि बृजेि के पक्ष में धिखे गए िसीयत
हदनांक 19.2.2002 को स्िीकार हकया गया िै
तर्था उसे धनरस्त करने की बात इस
िसीयतनामा 2.3.2002 में िै। इस प्रकार इस
दृवष्ट से भी हदनांक 19.2.2002 को कवपि राम ि
बृजेि राम के पक्ष में धनस्पाहदत पंजीकृत
िसीयत धसद्ध िै।
अब मीरा पाण्डेय, कवपि राम ि बृजेि
राम के पक्ष में धिखे गए अपंजीकृत िसीयत
2.3.2002 पर विचार हकया जा रिा िै। िाद में
धनस्पाहदत िसीयत िी प्रभािी भी िोगी। िेहकन
िसीयत को भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिधनयम की
िारा 68 तर्था समपवत्त अन्तरण अधिधनयम की
िारा 3 के अन्तगजत प्रमाम्णत िोना अधनिायज िै।
मीरा पाण्डेय द्वारा 2.3.2002 को अपने पक्ष में
रघुनार्थ द्वारा िसीयत धिखने की बात किी जा
रिी िै, परन्तु उनके द्वारा रघुनार्थ मृतक के मृत्यु
की िास्तविक धतधर्थ का कोई अधभिेखीय साक्ष्य
निीं हदया गया िै, म्जससे यि धसद्ध िो सके हक
धनस्पादन
की
तर्थाकधर्थत
धतधर्थ
पर
धनस्पादनकताज जीवित भी र्था या निीं। यि मान
भी िें हक 2.3.2002 को रघुनार्थ प्रसाद जीवित
र्थे, ऐसी म्स्र्थधत में िसीयत हदनांक 2.3.2002 के
परीक्षण पर क्या तथ्य आतें िैं?
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
जैसा
हक
ऊपर
के
प्रस्तरों
में
वििेचनोंपरान्त यि धनष्कषज प्रमाम्णत िै हक
कवपि राम ि बृजेि के पक्ष में धनष्पाहदत
िसीयत 19.2.2002 प्रमाम्णत तर्था उभय पक्षों
को स्िीकार िै, इसधिए इस िसीयत पर बने
रघुनार्थ के अं०धन० तर्था हदनांक 2.3.2002 को
मीरा पाण्डेय आहद के िसीयत पर बने रघुनार्थ
के अं०धन० के सामान्य धमिान से हदनांक
2.3.2002 के िसीयत की प्रमाम्णकता धसद्ध िो
सकती िै। हदनांक 19.2.2002के िसीयत पर
रघुनार्थ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंगूठा धनिान जो
बने िै, सामान्यता नंगी आंखों से देखने पर भी
उसमें जो रेखायें हदखती िै उनसे अंगूठा के
बीच में घुमािदार चि "चि" जैसी आकृधत
बन रिी िै। हदनांक 2.3.2002 के िसीयत पर
रघुनार्थ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंगूठा के जो धनिान
बने िै, सामान्य तर्था नंगी अॉॉख देखने पर िी
उसमें जो रेखायें हदखती िै उनसे अंगूठा बीि
में कोई "चि" जैसी आकृधत निीं बनती िै,
बम्लक घुमािदार रेखायें अंगूठा के प्रर्थम पोर
के ऊपरी हिस्से पर "िंख" जैसी आकृधत बनती
िै। अंगूठा के धनिान में उभरी रेखाओं के
घुमाि ि र्धनिंग में धभन्नता नंगी अॉॉखों से िी
देखी जा सकती, इसके धिए हकसी वििेषज्ञ की
राय िेने की भी आिश्यकता निीं िै। भारतीय
साक्ष्य अधिधनयम में स्पष्ट प्रावििान िै हक
न्यायािय स्िंय भी वििेषज्ञ के रूप में
व्यििार कर सकता िै। ऐसी म्स्र्थधत में हदनांक
19.2.2002 की प्रमाम्णत िसीयत पर बने
रघुनार्थ के अंगूठा धनिान की तुिना में हदनांक
2.3.2002 की िसीयत पर बने अंगूठा के
धनिान धभन्न िैं तर्था रघुनार्थ के अंगूठा के
धनिान निीं िो सकते िैं।
अतः हदनांक 2.3.2002की िसीयत की
पररम्स्र्थधतजन्य साक्ष्यों पर विचार करतें िै।
हदनांक 2.3.2002 की िसीयत र्ंहकत िै तर्था
िधसयें के गिाि चंरमम्ण द्वारा यि भी किा गया
िै हक िसीयत की धिखा पढी तिसीि
मुख्यािय पर की गई िै। तिसीि मुख्यािय पर
मार्त्र चंद कदमों पर म्स्र्थत उपधनबंिक
कायाजिय में पंजीयन न िोने के विषय में गिाि
ने मार्त्र यि किा िै हक पंजीयन के धिए समय
निीं र्था। गिाि ने िसीयत पूणज िोने का समय
चार-पांच बजे बताया िै। उपधनबंिक कायाजिय
पााँच बजे तक खुिा रिता िै और यि किना हक
समयाभाि के कारण पंजीयन निीं िो सका,
वबलकुि तथ्य से िर् कर िै। इस प्रकार
पररम्स्र्थधतयों यि प्रदधिजत करती िै हक
2.3.2002 िसीयत प्रूिड निीं िै।
उपयुजि वििेचन के आिार पर मैं इस
धनष्कषज पर पिुाँचा िूाँ हक हदनांक 19.2.2002 की
पंजीकृत िसीयत प्रूिड िै तर्था हदनांक 2.3.2002
की अपंजीकृत िसीयत प्रूिड निीं िै, ईश्वर
प्रसाद के पक्ष में प०क० 11 क का पाररत आदेि
भी जो हक िारा 171 में पाररत हकया गया िै,
अब िारा 169 में िसीयत प्रूिड िोने के कारण
धनरस्त िोने योग्य िै।
आदेि
िाम बेििधनया की ितजमान खतौनी
1408-1412 एफ खाता 81 तर्था 101 से मृतक
रघुनार्थ पुर्त्र बैकुण्ठ राम धन० िाम बेििधनया
का नाम पृर्थक करके पंजीकृत िसीयत के
4 All. Kapil Ram Pandey & Anr. Vs. Board of Revenue & Anr.
1347
आिारपर कवपि राम ि बृजेि राम पुर्त्रगण
ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय धन० बेििधनयीं का नाम
बतौर िाररत दजज िो। प०क० 11 क का आदेि
16.6.2002 धनरस्त िो।
िाम िोिामण्डी की खतौनी िषज 14051410 फ० के खाता 9 तर्था 118 से बने ितजमान
खतौन 1411-1416 एफ के खाता 9 से मृतक
रघुनार्थ पुर्त्र बैकुण्ठ राम धन० िाम बेििधनयां
का नाम (गैर गुन्दजज खतौनी), ईश्वर प्रसाद पुर्त्र
बैकुण्ठ प्रसाद मुन्दजज खतौनी (केिि पूण
खतौन 1405 1410 एफ के खाता 9, 118 के
बाित)
का
नाम
पृर्थक
करके
पंजीकृत
िसीयतनामा के आिार पर कवपि राम ि बृजेि
राम पुर्त्रगण ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय धन० बेििधनया
का नाम दजज िो। प०क० 11का आदेि
17.6.2002 धनरस्त िो। िाद अमिदरामद
दाम्खि दफतर िो।
ि०अप०
तिसीिदार 25.3.2004
(सत्य प्रधतधिप)

10. The perusal of the finding of
fact recorded by the Tehsildar fully
demonstrates that the Tehsildar has rightly
exercised the jurisdiction considering the
claim set up on the basis of the registered
will deed dated 19.2.2002 as well as the
claim set up on the basis of unregistered
will deed dated 2.3.2002. The Tehsildar has
recorded the finding of act that the
registered will deed dated 19.2.2002 is
proved and the subsequent unregistered
will deed dated 2.3.2002 is not proved, as
such, there is no infirmity in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 34 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 by the Tehsildar.
The exercise of jurisdiction by the Board of
Revenue under Section 219 of the U.P.
Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording the
name
on
the
basis
of
subsequent
unregistered will deed is in excess of
revisional jurisdiction of the Board of
Revenue. The law relating to mutation
under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1901 is very clear that there should be
proper exercise of jurisdiction by the
authority under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 and the exercise of
jurisdiction by the authority under Section
34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is
always subject to the adjudication of the
dispute by the regular court, as such,
respondent
no.2
can
initiate
proper
proceeding before the regular court for
redressal of her grievance in accordance
with law rather contest the summary
proceeding for unlimited period.

11. There is another aspect of the
case also that registered will deed executed
in favour of petitioners' has been alleged to
be cancelled by unregistered will deed
which is in violation of the provisions
contained under Section 92, proviso (4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which runs
as follows:-

 Proviso (4).--The existence of
any distinct subsequent oral agreement
to rescind or modify any such contract,
grant or disposition of property, may be
proved, except in cases in which such
contract, grant or disposition of property
is by law required to be in writing, or has
been registered according to the law in
force for the time being as to the
registration of documents:

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
reported in 2000(91) RD 615, S. Saktivel
(Dead) by L.Rs. vs. M. Venugopal Pillai
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Others has discussed the scope of
Section 92 proviso 4 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The paragraph no. 7 of the
judgment rendered in S. Saktivel (Dead)
by L.Rs. (Supra) is relevant which is as
follows:-
"In sum and substance what
proviso (4) to Section 92 provides is
that where a contract or disposition,
not required by law to be in writing,
has
been
arrived
at
orally
then
subsequent oral agreement modifying
or rescinding the said contract or
disposition can be substantiated by
parol evidence and such evidence is
admissible. Thus if a party has entered
into a contract which is not required to
be reduced in writing but such a
contract has been reduced in writing,
or it is oral in such situations it is
always open to the parties to the
contract to modify its terms and even
substitute a new by oral contract and it
can be substantiated by parol evidence.
In such kind of cases the oral evidence
can be let in to prove that the earlier
contract
or
agreement
has
been
modified or substituted by new oral
agreement. Where under law a contract
or disposition are required to be in
writing and the same has been reduced
in writing, its terms cannot be modified
or altered or substituted by oral
contract
or
disposition.
No
parol
evidence
will
be
admissible
to
substantiate such an oral contract or
disposition. A document for its validity
or effectiveness is required by law to be
in
writing
and,
therefore,
no
modification
or
alteration
or
substitution of such written document
is permissible by parol evidence and it
is only by another written document
the terms of earlier written document
can
be
altered,
rescinded
or
substituted. There is another reason
why the defendant/appellant cannot be
permitted to let in parol evidence to
substantiate
the
subsequent
oral
arrangement. The reason being that the
settlement
deed
is
a
registered
document. The second part of proviso
(4) to Section 92 does not permit
leading of parol evidence for proving a
subsequent oral agreement modifying
or
rescinding
the
registered
instrument. The terms of registered
document can be altered, rescinded or
varied only by subsequent registered
document and not otherwise. If the oral
arrangement
as
pleaded
by
the
appellant if allowed to be substantiated
by parol evidence it would mean re-
writing of Ex.A/1 and, therefore, no
parol evidence is permissible."

13. So far as the case laws cited
by learned counsel for the respondent No.
2 are concerned, this Court has held in
Kalawati (Supra) & Sahed Jan @
Bonde (Supra) that there should be proper
exercise of jurisdiction in the mutation
proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901 now Section - 34/35 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which shall be
subject to the adjudication of the dispute
by regular court. In the instant matter,
Tahasildar has rightly
exercised
the
jurisdiction in the mutation proceeding
which shall be subject to the adjudication
of dispute, if any, by regular court. In the
case of Sardul Ranjan (Supra) this Court
in paragraph No-13 of the judgment has
considered the case of Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2005 (98) RD 613,
Sridevi Versus Jayaraja Shetty in which
death of testator occurred within 15 days
of the execution of will, as such, the will
deed was found suspicious as such case
laws cited by learned Counsel for the
4 All. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1349
respondent No - 2 will not support his
argument.

14. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as the ratio of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra), the
impugned revisional order dated 10.7.2012,
passed by respondent no.1/Board of Revenue
is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby
set aside. The order passed by the Tehsildar
dated 25.3.2004 for recording the name of the
petitioners on the basis of the registered will
deed dated 19.2.2002 is hereby affirmed.

15. The writ petition stand
allowed.

16. Needless to say that the order
passed in mutation / summary proceeding
is always subject to adjudication of dispute
if any by the regular court.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 292 of 2024
With other connected cases

The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Anand Kumar Chaubey, Sri Man
Mohan Singh, C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constituion of India,1950Article 226-Working Journalists and Other
Newspaper
Employees(Conditions
of
Service)
and
Miscellaneous
Provisions
Act,1955-Section
17-The
petitioners
contested
the
validity
of
the
state
government's
notification
authorizing
specific officers to handle dispute 17 of the
act,1955-the
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner referred disputes to the
Labour Court regarding short payments to
employees-Held, the notification delegating
power u/s 17 was upheld as it was
consistent with the seamless mechanism
envisaged by the act,1955-Section 17 was
found to provide an integrated framework
for resolving disputes and recovering duesThe Assistant labor commissioner's role in
referring disputes was valid-The Labour
Court's findings on short payment of wages
were not challenged on merits but only on
technical grounds, which were dismissedThe court clarified that the Labour Court's
decision under section 17(3) was not an
"award" requiring publication under the
Industrial
Disputes
Act-Hence,
the
notification, reference to Labour Court and
recovery orders were upheld-The court
emphasized the intent of the act 1955 to
safeguard the rights of journalists and
newspaper
employees,
especially
concerning
wage
disputes
through
an
effective recovery mechanism.(Para 1to 60)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. ABP Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I.(2014) 3 SCC 327

2. Avishek Raja & ors. Vs Sanjay Gupta(2017) 8
SCC 422

3. Pradhan Prabandbank/Unit Head M/s Amar
Ujala Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2018)7 ADJ 715

4. Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. Jagatganj
Vns. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.(2020)7 ADJ 555

5. Ficus Pax (P) Ltd. Vs U.O.I.(2020) 4 SCC 810

6. Coleman Co.Ltd. Vs St.of Bih.(2015) 11 SCC
204

7. Awaz Prakashan (P) Ltd. Vs Pramod Kumar
Pujari (2003) 6 SCC 104