Neutral Citation No:- 2024:AHC:32823
AFR
Court No. 49 Reserved on:13.02.2024 Delivered on:11.03.2024 WRIT - B No. - 47402 of 2012 Petitioners :- Kapil Ram Pandey and Another Respondents :- Board of Revenue and Another Counsel for Petitioners:- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Kumar Singh, Tarun Gaur, Standing Counsel
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 state- respondents.
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.
1
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. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 28.7.2005 allowed the revision setting aside the
2
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 3rdparty 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.
3
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 the relevant point of time. He also submitted that the impugned
4
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 cross-examination of the marginal
5
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 2.3.2002. There is also no dispute about the fact that the appeal
6
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:-
न्यायालय तहसीलदार - घोरावल , जनपद सोनभद्र
1- वाद संख्या-469, अन्तर्ग त धारा 34/भू०रा०अधिध० कपिपल राम, बृजेश राम प्रधित रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा लोहामण्डी। 2- वाद संख्या 896, अन्तर्ग त धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधिध० कपिपलराम, बृजेश राम प्रधित रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा बेलवपिनयां। 3- वाद संख्या 581, अन्तर्ग त धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधिध० मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिपल राम, बृजेश राम प्रधित रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा लोहा मण्डी।
4- वाद संख्या 582, अन्तर्ग त धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधिध० मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिपल राम, बृजेश राम प्रधित रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा बेलवपिनया।
सव प्रथम पंजीकृत वसीयत 19.2.2002 का परीक्षण पिकया जा रहा ह।ै इस वसीयत पर चस्पा की र्गई फोटो को स्व० रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के फोटो के रूप में दोनों हासिसया के र्गवाहों ने स्वीकार पिकया ह।ै मीरा पाण्डेय की ओर से यह प्रधितवाद नहीं पिकया र्गया है पिक यह फोटो रघनुाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय की नहीं ह।ै यही व्यपि< पिदनांकः 19.02.2002 को उपपिनबन्धक घोरावल के यहां उपस्थिस्थत होकर वसिसयत का पिनस्पादन सुन समझ कर स्वीकार पिकया ह,ै जैसा पिक उपपिनबन्धक के पृष्ठांकर पिदनांकः 19.2.2002 से स्पष्ट ह।ै इस पंजीकृत वसीयत के हासिसया के दो र्गवाह हैं एक ईश्वर प्रसाद तथा दसूरे जय प्रसाद पाठक। दोनों ने न्यायालय में उपस्थिस्थत होकर वसीयत के पिनस्पादन को स्वीकार पिकया ह।ै ईश्वर प्रसाद जो पिक मृतक के नौसर्गिर्गक पिनकटतम
7
वारिरस तथा कपिपल राम व बृजेश राम के पिपता हैं, के ब्यान को एक क्षण के लिलए अलर्ग भी कर दें तो जय प्रसाद पाठक ने अपने बयान में कहा है पिक "
वकील साहब सुदा वसीयत को पढ़कर सनुाए। सुनने व समझने के बाद रघुनाथ अपना पिन०अं० लर्गाए। अं० पिन० मेरी व ईश्वर प्रसाद की उपस्थिस्थधित में रघुनाथ ने अपना पिन०अं० लर्गाए। रघुनाथ की उपस्थिस्थधित में मैं और ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय ने बतौर र्गवाह अपना०-अपना हस्ताक्षर बनाया। वसीयतनामा में धिचपकाए र्गए फोटो को देखकर र्गवाह ने बताया पिक यह फोटो रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय पुत्र बकुैण्ठ प्रसाद पाण्डेय का ह।ै" इस प्रकार र्गवाह ने एक ही सीटिंटर्ग में एक दसूरे की उपस्थिस्थधित में एक दसूरे को वसीयत पर हस्ताक्षर/अं०पिन० लर्गाने की बात स्वीकार की ह।ै इससे सम्पलिQ अन्तण अधिधपिनयम की धारा 3 के अनुसार वसीयत के अटेसटेशन प्रमाणिणत होते हैं। अब इसी जय प्रसाद पाठक के बयान के प्रधित परीक्षण के अंश को देखते हैं , इसमे र्गवाह ने कहा पिक " रघनुाथ पाण्डेय को मैनें देखा ह।ै वे चलने पिफरने में वसीयत लिलखने के पिदन पूण तया असमथ थे। ठेला से लादकर आए थे। सिजतना देर तक वसीयत की लिलखी पढ़ी हुयी रघुनाथ उसी ठेले पर सोये रहे। लिलखा पढ़ी के बाद हमने या मसपिवदाकता द्वारा उनसे न तो कुछ पूछा र्गया और न ही उन्हें पढकर सनुाया र्गया। वसीयत लिलखने के बाद उसी ठेले पर ले जाया र्गया उसी जर्गह उनका पिन०अं० लर्गवाया र्गया।" उस बयान में भी र्गवाह ने रघुनाथ को पिन०अं० लर्गाने की बात स्वीकार की है, परन्तु अपने मुख्य परीक्षा के ब्यान से हटकर एक तथ्य यह भी कहा है पिक रघनुाथ चलने पिफरने में असमथ थे तथा उनसे कुछ पूछा नहीं र्गया और न वसीयत पढकर सनुायी र्गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में उपपिनबन्धक का पृष्ठांकन पिदनांक 19.2.2002 जो पिक उनके द्वारा अपने पदीय राजकीय दाधियत्व के तहत पिकया र्गया है महत्वपूण है, इसमें उपपिनबन्धक घोरावल ने स्पष्ट रूप से यह लिलखा है पिक "
इस पत्र के पिवषय व सम्पादन को सुनसमझ कर श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद उ< ने स्वीकार पिकया" इससे स्पष्ट है पिक वसीयत के पिनस्पादन को श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद को सुनाया व समझाया र्गया था और पिनस्पादन को श्री रघनुाथ प्रसाद को सुनाया व समझाया र्गया था और उन्होनें उसे स्वीकार करते हुए पिनस्पापिदन पिकया ह।ै मैं कपिपल राम के पिवद्वान के अधिधव<ा के इस कथन से सहमत हँू पिक र्गवाह जय प्रसाद पाठक ने प्रधितपरीक्षण में दबाव में कुछ हटकर
8
पिटप्पणी की ह,ै परन्तु रघुनाथ प्रसाद के पिन०अं० लर्गाने की बात को स्वीकार पिकया ह।ै इस प्रकार र्गवाह मूल रूप से पिनस्पादन को स्वीकार करते पिदखता ह।ै वसीयत भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिधपिनयम की धारा 68 के अनुसार सापिबत ह।ै
सुबसे मुख्य बात यह है पिक मीरा पाण्डेय के पास में अपंजीकृत वसीय 2.3.2002 में कपिपल व बृजेश के पक्ष में लिलखे र्गए वसीयत पिदनांक 19.2.2002 को स्वीकार पिकया र्गया है तथा उसे पिनरस्त करने की बात इस वसीयतनामा 2.3.2002 में ह।ै इस प्रकार इस दृपिष्ट से भी पिदनांक 19.2.2002 को कपिपल राम व बृजेश राम के पक्ष में पिनस्पापिदत पंजीकृत वसीयत सिसद्ध ह।ै
अब मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिपल राम व बृजेश राम के पक्ष में लिलखे र्गए अपंजीकृत वसीयत 2.3.2002 पर पिवचार पिकया जा रहा ह।ै वाद में पिनस्पापिदत वसीयत ही प्रभावी भी होर्गी। लेपिकन वसीयत को भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिधपिनयम की धारा 68 तथा सम्पलिQ अन्तरण अधिधपिनयम की धारा 3 के अन्तर्ग त प्रमाणिणत होना अपिनवाय ह।ै मीरा पाण्डेय द्वारा 2.3.2002 को अपने पक्ष में रघनुाथ द्वारा वसीयत लिलखने की बात कही जा रही है, परन्तु उनके द्वारा रघनुाथ मृतक के मृत्यु की वास्तपिवक धितणिथ का कोई अणिभलेखीय साक्ष्य नहीं पिदया र्गया है , सिजससे यह सिसद्ध हो सके पिक पिनस्पादन की तथाकणिथत धितणिथ पर पिनस्पादनकता जीपिवत भी था या नहीं। यह मान भी लें पिक 2.3.2002 को रघुनाथ प्रसाद जीपिवत थे, ऐसी स्थिस्थधित में वसीयत पिदनांक 2.3.2002 के परीक्षण पर क्या तथ्य आतें हैं?
जैसा पिक ऊपर के प्रस्तरों में पिववेचनोंपरान्त यह पिनष्कष प्रमाणिणत है पिक कपिपल राम व बृजेश के पक्ष में पिनष्पापिदत वसीयत 19.2.2002 प्रमाणिणत तथा उभय पक्षों को स्वीकार है, इसलिलए इस वसीयत पर बने रघनुाथ के अं०पिन० तथा पिदनांक 2.3.2002 को मीरा पाण्डेय आपिद के वसीयत पर बने रघुनाथ के अं०पिन० के सामान्य पिमलान से पिदनांक 2.3.2002 के वसीयत की प्रमाणिणकता सिसद्ध हो सकती ह।ै पिदनांक 19.2.2002 के वसीयत पर
9
रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंर्गूठा पिनशान जो बने है, सामान्यता नंर्गी आंखों से देखने पर भी उसमें जो रखेायें पिदखती है उनसे अरं्गूठा के बीच में घुमावदार चक्र "चक्र" जैसी आकृधित बन रही ह।ै पिदनांक 2.3.2002 के वसीयत पर रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंर्गूठा के जो पिनशान बने है, सामान्य तथा नरं्गी अॉख देखने पर ही उसमें जो रखेायें पिदखती है उनसे अंर्गूठा बीछ में कोई "चक्र" जैसी आकृधित नहीं बनती है, बस्थिfक घुमावदार रखेायें अंर्गूठा के प्रथम पोर के ऊपरी पिहस्से पर "शंख" जैसी आकृधित बनती ह।ै अरं्गूठा के पिनशान में उभरी रखेाओ ंके घुमाव व टर्निंनर्ग में णिभन्नता नंर्गी अॉखों से ही देखी जा सकती, इसके लिलए पिकसी पिवशेषज्ञ की राय लेने की भी आवश्यकता नहीं ह।ै भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिधपिनयम में स्पष्ट प्रापिवधान है पिक न्यायालय स्वंय भी पिवशेषज्ञ के रूप में व्यवहार कर सकता ह।ै ऐसी स्थिस्थधित में पिदनांक 19.2.2002 की प्रमाणिणत वसीयत पर बने रघनुाथ के अंर्गूठा पिनशान की तुलना में पिदनांक 2.3.2002 की वसीयत पर बने अरं्गूठा के पिनशान णिभन्न हैं तथा रघुनाथ के अरं्गूठा के पिनशान नहीं हो सकते हैं।
अतः पिदनांक 2.3.2002 की वसीयत की परिरस्थिस्थधितजन्य साक्ष्यों पर पिवचार करतें ह।ै पिदनांक 2.3.2002 की वसीयत टंपिकत है तथा हसिसयें के र्गवाह चंद्रमणिण द्वारा यह भी कहा र्गया है पिक वसीयत की लिलखा पढी तहसील मुख्यालय पर की र्गई ह।ै तहसील मुख्यालय पर मात्र चंद कदमों पर स्थिस्थत उपपिनबंधक काया लय में पंजीयन न होने के पिवषय में र्गवाह ने मात्र यह कहा है पिक पंजीयन के लिलए समय नहीं था। र्गवाह ने वसीयत पूण होने का समय चार-पांच बजे बताया ह।ै उपपिनबंधक काया लय पाँच बजे तक खलुा रहता है और यह कहना पिक समयाभाव के कारण पंजीयन नहीं हो सका , पिबfकुल तथ्य से हट कर ह।ै इस प्रकार परिरस्थिस्थधितयों यह प्रदर्शिशत करती है पिक 2.3.2002 वसीयत प्रवूड नहीं ह।ै
उपयु < पिववेचन के आधार पर मैं इस पिनष्कष पर पहुँचा हँू पिक पिदनांक 19.2.2002 की पंजीकृत वसीयत पू्रवड है तथा पिदनांक 2.3.2002 की अपंजीकृत वसीयत प्रवूड नहीं है, ईश्वर प्रसाद के पक्ष में प०क० 11 क का
10
पारिरत आदेश भी जो पिक धारा 171 में पारिरत पिकया र्गया है, अब धारा 169 में वसीयत पू्रवड होने के कारण पिनरस्त होने योग्य ह।ै आदेश
ग्राम बेलवपिनया की वत मान खतौनी 1408-1412 एफ खाता 81 तथा 101 से मृतक रघुनाथ पुत्र बकुैण्ठ राम पिन० ग्राम बेलवपिनया का नाम पृथक करके पंजीकृत वसीयत के आधारपर कपिपल राम व बृजेश राम पुत्रर्गण ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय पिन० बेलवपिनयीं का नाम बतौर वारिरत दज हो। प०क० 11 क का आदेश 16.6.2002 पिनरस्त हो।
ग्राम लोहामण्डी की खतौनी वष 1405-1410 फ० के खाता 9 तथा 118 से बने वत मान खतौन 1411-1416 एफ के खाता 9 से मृतक रघनुाथ पुत्र बकुैण्ठ राम पिन० ग्राम बेलवपिनयां का नाम (रै्गर र्गुन्दज खतौनी), ईश्वर प्रसाद पुत्र बकुैण्ठ प्रसाद मुन्दज खतौनी (केवल पूण खतौन 1405 1410 एफ के खाता 9, 118 के बावत) का नाम पृथक करके पंजीकृत वसीयतनामा के आधार पर कपिपल राम व बृजेश राम पुत्रर्गण ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय पिन० बेलवपिनया का नाम दज हो। प०क० 11 का आदेश 17.6.2002 पिनरस्त हो। वाद अमलदरामद दालिखल दफतर हो।
ह०अप०
तहसीलदार
25.3.2004
(सत्य प्रधितलिलप)
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
11
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
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in 2000(91) RD 615, S. Saktivel (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. M. Venugopal Pillai 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
13
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 respondent No - 2 will not support his argument.
14
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.
OrderDate:-11.3.2024
C.Prakash
(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)
15