# Praful Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1162
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22675 of 2023
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praful-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49310
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Section 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section
92
Proviso
(4)
-
Mutation
Proceedings
-
Registered
Will
-
Unregistered Will - Civil Suit - Natural
Justice
The petitioner, Praful Kumar Singh, challenged
the Tehsildar's order dated 12.11.2018, allowing
mutation in favor of respondent no. 4, Usha
Singh, based on a registered will dated
23.12.1992, and the Revisional Court's order
dated 21.11.2022, dismissing the petitioner's
revision.
The
petitioner
relied
on
an
unregistered will dated 09.01.1993 and a
compromise during mutation proceedings.

Held: (1) The writ petition was dismissed,
upholding the impugned orders. (2) The
Tehsildar's mutation order in favor of Usha
Singh, based on the registered will, was valid,
as it was supported by evidence and not
cancelled legally. (3) The unregistered will and
alleged compromise could not override the
registered will, as per Section 92 Proviso (4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars parol
evidence to modify or rescind a registered
document, as clarified in S. Saktivel Vs M.
Venugopal Pillai. (4) The petitioner's pending
civil suit (No. 221 of 2021) for declaring the
registered will null and void is the appropriate
remedy, and mutation orders are subject to the
civil court's adjudication, as per Jitendra Singh
Vs St. of Madhya Pradesh. (5) No interference
was warranted in the summary mutation
proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901. (6) The petitioner was
granted liberty to pursue the civil suit to
establish his claim.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1162
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 22675 of 2023

Praful Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gyanendra Pratap Singh

Civil Law - U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 -
Section 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 -
Section
92
Proviso
(4)
-
Mutation
Proceedings
-
Registered
Will
-
Unregistered Will - Civil Suit - Natural
Justice
The petitioner, Praful Kumar Singh, challenged
the Tehsildar's order dated 12.11.2018, allowing
mutation in favor of respondent no. 4, Usha
Singh, based on a registered will dated
23.12.1992, and the Revisional Court's order
dated 21.11.2022, dismissing the petitioner's
revision.
The
petitioner
relied
on
an
unregistered will dated 09.01.1993 and a
compromise during mutation proceedings.

Held: (1) The writ petition was dismissed,
upholding the impugned orders. (2) The
Tehsildar's mutation order in favor of Usha
Singh, based on the registered will, was valid,
as it was supported by evidence and not
cancelled legally. (3) The unregistered will and
alleged compromise could not override the
registered will, as per Section 92 Proviso (4) of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars parol
evidence to modify or rescind a registered
document, as clarified in S. Saktivel Vs M.
Venugopal Pillai. (4) The petitioner's pending
civil suit (No. 221 of 2021) for declaring the
registered will null and void is the appropriate
remedy, and mutation orders are subject to the
civil court's adjudication, as per Jitendra Singh
Vs St. of Madhya Pradesh. (5) No interference
was warranted in the summary mutation
proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Land
Revenue Act, 1901. (6) The petitioner was
granted liberty to pursue the civil suit to
establish his claim.

Case Law Cited:

1. Jitendra Singh Vs St. of M.P., 2021 (0)
Supreme (SC) 487;

2. S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.R.s Vs M. Venugopal
Pillai & ors., 2000 (91) RD 615;

3. Smt. Kalawati Vs Board of Revenue & ors.,
(2022) 155 R.D. 169.

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

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
is taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ojha,
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Gyanendra Pratap Singh for respondent
no.4 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that one
Gajraj Singh was the recorded tenure
holder of the plot in dispute. Gajraj Singh
has alleged to execute a registered will
deed on 23.12.1992 in favour of Usha
Singh. On 9.1.1993.,Gajraj Singh has
alleged to execute another unregistered will
deed on 9.1.1993 in favour of his nephew-
Digvijay Singh and others. Tehsildar
initially allowed the mutation in favour of
Vijay Bahadur and others vide order dated
15.7.1993 but later on the order for
mutation dated 15.7.1993 was recalled and
fresh order was passed on 12.11.2018 in
10 All. Praful Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1163
favour of Usha Singh on the basis of
registered
will
deed
executed
on
23.12.1992. The order of Tehsildar was
maintained in revision by Revisional Court
while dismissing the revision filed by
petitioner vide impugned order dated
21.11.2022 hence this writ petition for
quashing the order dated 12.11.2018 and
21.11.2022 in the proceeding under Section
34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

4.

Counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that Gajraj Singh has executed
the unregistered will deed in favour of
Vijay Bahadur and others which was the
last will of the deceased- Gajraj. He further
submitted that during pendency of the
mutation proceeding, compromise has
taken place by which the respondent no.4-
Usha Singh has admitted the execution of
subsequent will deed dated 9.1.1993 but the
Court
has
arbitrarily
ignored
the
compromise taken place during pendency
of the proceeding. He further submitted
that Revisional Court has also failed to
consider the points set up in the revision
and argued before the Revisional Court.
He further submitted
that although
petitioner filed a civil suit No. 221 of
2021 against the Usha Singh before the
Court of Civil Judge Junior Division,
Chunar, Mirzapur for declaring will deed
dated 24.12.1992 as null and void but the
order of mutation passed by Tehsildar on
the basis of alleged will deed dated
23.12.1992 cannot be sustained. He
further submitted that impugned orders
be set aside and mutation matter be
considered afresh in the light of the
compromise taken place between the
parties before the Tehsildar. He further
placed reliance upon the judgment of
Apex
Court
reported
in
2021
(0)
Supreme Court (SC) 487 Jitendra
Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Gyanendra
Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing
for respondent no.4 submitted that Gajraj
Singh has executed a registered will deed in
favour of Usha Singh which has not been
cancelled in accordance with law, as such,
the mutation order was rightly passed by
Tehsildar in favour of the respondent no.4-
Usha Singh. He further submitted that
revision filed by the petitioner has also
been dismissed and no interference is
required in the matter. He submitted that
petitioner has already filed suit for
declaration in respect to the will deed
executed in favour of respondent no.4, as
such, petitioner should press his pending
civil suit and no interference is required
against the impugned order passed in the
summary proceeding under Section 34 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act.

6. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents supported the impugned
orders and submitted that writ petition is
liable to be dismissed in view of the ratio of
law laid down by this court in the case
reported in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of
Revenue and Others, reported in (2022)
155 R.D. 169.

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 Tehsildar has passed the order of
mutation in favour of respondent no.4,
Usha Singh on the basis of registered will
deed dated 24.12.1992. There is also no
dispute about the fact that revision filed by
the petitioner has also been dismissed.
There is also no dispute about the fact that
civil suit No. 221 of 2021 filed by
petitioner in respect to the will deed dated
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24.12.1992 is pending before the Civil
Court.

9. It is material that Tehsildar while
passing the order of mutation on the basis
of registered will deed dated 24.12.1992
has recorded finding of fact for passing
order of mutation in favour of the
respondent no.4- Usha Singh and the order
of Tehsildar has been maintained in
revision.

10. The finding recorded by Tehsildar
while passing the order of mutation in
favour of Usha Singh will be relevant for
perusal which is as under:-

"पत्रावली का सम्यक परिशीलन ककया। पत्रावली पि
उपलब्द साक्ष्यानुसाि गजिाज कसिंह मृतक द्वािा सगी पुत्री उषा
कसिंह के पक्ष में पिंजीकृत वसीयतनामा तहिीि ककया गया है,
कजसके आधाि पि वसीयतग्रकहता उषा कसिंह द्वािा नामान्तिण
रिपोर्ट दाकिल ककया है तथा अपिंजीकृत वसीयतनामा के
आधाि पि कदकववजय कसिंह द्वािा नामान्तिण रिपोर्ट दाकिल
ककया गया है। वसीयतग्रकहता उषा कसिंह की तिफ से पिंजीकृत
वसीयत के बावत साक्ष्य पूणट कि उसे पुष्ट किाया गया है।
कदकववजय कसिंह आकद प्रस्तुत किने हेतु कदनािंक 23.05.2008 से
ही पयाटप्त अवसि प्रदान ककया गया ककन्तु उनके द्वािा कोई साक्ष्य
प्रस्तुत नही ककया जाना मात्र वाद को कवलकम्बत ककया जाना
परिलकक्षत होता है। वाद पत्रावली कदनािंक 13.06.2008 से ही
बहस में कनयत होती चली आ िही है। प्रश्नगत वाद पत्रावली के
कनस्तािण हेतु मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में रिर् निं०57098
वषट 2016 योकजत किाया गया कजसमें मा० न्यायालय द्वािा एक
वषट में कनस्तारित किने हेतु कनदेकशत ककया गया है। प्रश्नगत वादा में
उभय पक्ष को साक्ष्य व सुनवायी का पयाटप्त अवसि प्रदान ककये
जाने का कोई कवकधक औकचत्य नहीं है। प्रकतवादी द्वािा दाकिल
आपकि पत्र बलहीन होने की दशा में कनिस्त ककया जाता है, तथा
कदकववजय कसिंह आकद द्वािा अपिंजीकृत वसीयतनामा के आधाि पि
दाकिल नामान्तिण रिपोर्ट कनिस्त ककया जाता है। उषा कसिंह जो
गजिाज कसिंह मृतक की सगी पुत्री याकन स्वाभाकवक वारिस होने के
साथ - साथ उनके पक्ष मे मृृृतक गजिाज कसिंह द्वािा पिंजीकृत
वसीयत भी तहिीि है, कजसे गवाहों द्वािा पुष्ट भी किाया गया है,
के पक्ष में नामान्तिण आदेश पारित ककये जाने में कोई कवकधक
अड़चन प्रतीत नही होता है।
आदेश
अतः आदेश हुआ कक कस्थत मौजा बगहािं पिगना कृयात
तहसील चुनाि कजला मीिजापुि की ितौनी सन् 1423 से
1428 फ० के िाता सिं०126 भू०िा० पिता िाता व ग्राग
कतगासानी पिगना कृयात तहसील चुनाि कजला मीिजापुि की
ितौनी सन् 1423 से 1428 फ० के िाता सिं०
50भू०िा०पिता
िाता
से
पिंजीकृत
वसीयतनामा
कदनािंक12.12.1992 ई० के आधाि पि वसीयतकताट मृतक
गजिाज कसिंह पुत्र गुलाब कसिंह बाहदू अिंककत नाम चन्रभान कसिंह
व हौकसला प्रसाद कसिंह पुत्रगण सूिज प्रसाद कसिंह व जगत
बहादुि कसिंह पुत्र स्व० िामलगन कसिंह व कवजय बहादुि कसिंह व
अजय बहादुि कसिंह पुत्रगण देवेन्र निायन कसिंह व प्रफुल्ल
कुमाि व िाजेश कुमाि व नीिज कसिंह पुत्रगण कदकववजय कसिंह व
प्रेमा देवी पत्नी कदकववजय कसिंह व कन० गण बगहािं पिगना
कृयात तहसील चुनाि कजला मीिजापुि का नाम कनिस्त किके
वसीयतग्रकहता उषा कसिंह पत्नी लल्लू कसिंह कन०ग्राम कबहड़ा
पत्रालय ठठिा कजला वािाणसी का नाम बतौि उििाकधकािी
दजट कागजात माल हो। वाद अमलदिामद हो। पत्रावली दफ्तह
हो।

(ओम प्रकाश पाण्डेय)
तहसील चुनाि,

मीिजापुि"

11. It is also relevant that the
registered will deed executed by Gajraj
Singh is alleged to be substituted by
unregistered will deed, as such, perusal of
Section 92 Proviso (4) of the Indian
Evidence Act 1872 will be relevant which
is as under:-

"92. Exclusion of evidence of oral
agreement.?When the terms of any such
contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or any matter required by law to
be reduced to the form of a document, have
been proved according to the last section,
no evidence of any oral agreement or
statement shall be admitted, as between the
parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for the purpose
of contradicting, varying, adding to, or
subtracting from, its terms:
10 All. Praful Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1165

Proviso (1).?Any fact may be
proved
which
would
invalidate
any
document, or which would entitle any
person to any decree or order relating
thereto; such as fraud, intimidation,
illegality, want of due execution, want of
capacity in any contracting party, [want or
failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact
or law.

Proviso (2).?The existence of any
separate oral agreement as to any matter
on which a document is silent, and which is
not inconsistent with its terms, may be
proved. In considering whether or not this
proviso applies, the Court shall have
regard to the degree of formality of the
document.

Proviso (3).?The existence of any
separate oral agreement, constituting a
condition precedent to the attaching of any
obligation under any such contract, grant
or disposition of property, may be proved.

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.

Proviso (5).?Any usage or
custom by which incidents not expressly
mentioned in any contract are usually
annexed
to
contracts
of
that
description, may be proved:

Provided that the annexing of
such incident would not be repugnant
to, or inconsistent with, the express terms
of the contract.

Proviso (6).?Any fact may be
proved which shows in what manner the
language of a document is related to
existing facts."

12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
reported in 2000(91) RD 615, S. Saktivel
(Dead) by L.R.s vs. M. Venugopal Pillai
and Others has discussed the scope of
Section 92 proviso 4, in the paragraph no. 7
of the judgment 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,
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. It is also material that petitioner
has already filed a civil suit for declaration
in respect to the will deed executed on
24.12.1992 in favour of respondent no.4-
Usha Singh which is pending before the
Civil Court, as such, it will be proper for
the petitioner to press his pending civil suit
in accordance with law.

14. The case law of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jitendra Singh (Supra) as cited
by learned Counsel for the petitioner also
held that mutation order passed on the basis
of the will deed shall be subject to the
adjudication of the dispute by regular
Court.

15. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances as well as the ratio of law
laid down by Apex Court in S. Saktivel
(Supra), no interference is required against
the impugned orders passed in the
summary proceeding under Section 34 of
the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901.

16. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. Needless to say that orders
passed in the mutation proceeding will not
come in the way of the petitioner to
establish his claim before the Civil Court in
accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1166
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-C No. 24877 of 2023

Mangleshwar Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Om Prakash Pandey, Sri Dinesh Kumar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Sri Vimal
Chandra Mishra

Civil Law - U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 -
Sections 94, 95, 116 & 210 - Uttar
Pradesh Solar Energy Policy, 2022 -
Article 226 of the Constitution of India -
Lease
Deed
-
Co-sharer
Dispute
-
Partition
Suit
-
Writ
Jurisdiction
-
Alternative Remedy
The petitioner, Mangleshwar Prasad, challenged
the lease deed executed and registered on
19.10.2022 by respondent no. 7 in favor of
respondent no. 6 for a Solar Energy Project,
alleging that respondent no. 7 misrepresented
his share as 1/8 instead of 1/64 in the disputed
plots. The petitioner, a co-sharer with a 1/8