Vinod Kumar v. D.D.C. and Others

Judgment Reserved on16.10.2023 Delivered on 19.10.2023 Court No. - 48

¶1Case :- WRIT - B No. - 46438 of 2011 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- D.D.C. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- N.L. Pandey,Kailash Nath Singh,L.N. Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lal Chandar Yadav,Y.C. Yadav

¶2Case :- WRIT - B No. - 18285 of 2014 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- The D.D.C. And 8 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1275 of 2023 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Lal Chandra Yadav

¶4Case :- WRIT - B No. - 419 of 2021 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Kailash Nath Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Lal Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for respondents in leading writ petition as well as other respective counsel in other writ petitions.

¶2Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the leading cases would be Writ Petition No.46438 of 2011 and Writ Petition No.18285 of 2014 and a judgment thereof would cover other two writ petitions, which were filed later on.

¶3The issue for consideration is validity of an unregistered Will dated 8.10.1963 vis-a-vis a registered Will dated 20.1.1986. The following pedigree is not in dispute:

¶4This is the second round of litigation. In first round, Consolidation Officer vide order dated 26.6.1999 has allowed objections filed by the petitioner and held that Will in question was proved. The Consolidation Officer has decided the case by a very short order and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "

समसतआपितयोकेअवलोकनसेसपषहैिकमूलिववरणीयिबनदु

यहिकिववािदतआराजीकावासतिवकहकदारकौनहैभुलईयापभावती,

दोनोआपितकतारओंकेअिभकथनकेपकाशमेिववेचनिकयागया। भुलई

दारापसतुतवसीयतनामाजगईदारािलखागयाहैजोशीमतीभगवनती ( मृतक

)

केपितथेऔरमूलतःआरािजयातकेमािलककािबजथे।वसीयतनामे

केमूलपाठसेहीसपषहैिकशीमतीभगवनतीकेमरनेकेउपरानतवह

जायदादभुलईकोपापहोगी।अबपशनयहिककयावसीयतनामासहीहैया

नही।वसीयतनामाशंभुनारायणलालपटवारीदारािलखागयाहैतथामुनी

लालवबाबूरामयादवदाराउसकातसदीकिकयागयाहै।पतावलीमे

शंभुनरायनलालवबाबूरामयादवकेवयानसंलगहै।िजसमेउनहोनेवसीयत

िलखाजानापमािणतिकयाहै।चूंिकवसीयतपमािणतहोगयीहै।चूंिकभुलई

दौरानमुकदमाफौजदारीकरगयेहै

,

अतःिवनोदकुमारिवरेनदकुमारविवनय

कुमारपुतगणभुलईनामपितसथािपतहोचुकाहै।

जहांतकपभावतीकेखािरजहोनेकासवालहैवहजमीनदारी

अिधिनयमकीधारा171

केतहतवािरसहोनाचाहतीहैजोनहीहै।कयोिक

वहमृतकजगईकीसनताननहीहैवभगवनतीकेपथमपितकीपुतीहै।

जमीदारीिवनाशअिधिनयमकेधारा172

केतहतवअिधकािरणीहोसकती थी,

यिदजगईनेसवयंअपनीसमपितकावसीयतनामानिकयाहोता।अतः

आपितपभावतीिनराधारहैऔरउऩकासंशोधनपाथरनापतसवीकारयोगयनही है। "

¶5Aforesaid order was challenged by contesting respondents by way of filing an appeal, which was allowed vide order dated

18.7.2001 and matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer.

¶6Petitioners thereafter filed a revision petition which was allowed vide order dated 6.4.2009 with direction that instead of remitting the matter to Consolidation Officer it was directed that Appellate Authority shall decide the case on merit. Said order was upheld by this Court vide order dated 14.5.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.25224 of 2009.

¶7In aforesaid circumstances, Settlement Officer of Consolidation considered appeal afresh and it was allowed and order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 26.6.1999 was set-aside. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "

उभयपकोकेिवदानअिधवकाकेतकोंकोसुननेवपतावलीमे

उपलबधसाकयोएवम्अवरनयायालयिकवादपतावलीकािविधवतपिरशीलन

करनेकेबादिवचरणीयिबनदुयहहैिकगाममझगवाकलाकेचकसं0 445 व

चकपरेआरजीयातकामािलकववािरसअपीलानटपभावतीहैअथवा

उतरवादीगणिवनोदकुमारआिदहै।सजराखानदानसेसपषहैिकगया, रामकरन, जगई, फौजदार,

बाबूननदन,

पुतगणिवशेषरसगेभाईहै।िजसमे

गयाकीसाखसेभुलईवभुलईकेमरनेकेबादउनकेलडकेिवनोदकुमार

आिदहै,

जोअपीलमेउतरवादीहै।िववादजगईकीआराजीबातहैजगई

कीपतनीभागवनतीवभागवनतीकीपुतीपभावतीअपीलानटहै।रामकरनपुत

िवशेषरएकमातलडकीकेवलपतीहै,

िजसकेहकमेवसीयतनामारामकरन

नेिलखाहै।उसीवसीयतनामामेअपनेभाईजगईवभाभीभागवनतीकीमृतयु

काउलेखकरतेहुएकहाहैिकउनकेएकमातवािरसशीमतीपभावतीउनकी

लडकीहै,

इसिलएभाईवभाभीकेमरनेकेबादउनकीजायदादकोपभावती

कोदेकरकािबजकरािदयाऔरइसकेबादयहपंजीकृतवसीयतनामा20-1-86

कोिलखाहै।िजसकािवरोधउतरवादीगणिवनोदकुमारआिदकेिवदान

अिधवकादारायहकरिकयागयािकयहदौरानमुकदमातैयारिकयागयाहै।

अपीलानटकीआपितधारा12

मेसा०च०अ०केयहाँदािखलहुईहै, िजसे

चकबनदीअिधकारीनेअपनीिववेचनामेयहिलखतेहुएखािरजिकयािकज०

िव०धारा172

केतहतवहअिधकािरणीहोसकतीथीिकनतुजगईनेसवयंिक

समपिककावसीयतकरािदयाहै.

ऐसीिसथितमेपभावतीकेआिपकको

िनराधारमानतेहुएिनरसतकरिदया,

जबिकजगईदारारेसपाडेनटसकेपक

िलखागयावसीयतनामाअपंजीकृतहै।औरकाफीजीणर-

शीणरिसथितमेहै।

औरकरनदाराउकमुकदमेमेदािखलजवाबदेहीमेिजसमेउनहोनेसाकय

दािखलिकयाहै।औरभागवनतीकावािरसकापभावतीकोमानाहै।इस

पकारचकबनदीकाअिधकारीकाआदेशसरसरीतौरपािरतिकयाहै, िजसे

पूवारिधकारीदारािदनांक18-7-2001

कोपभावतीकीअपीलसवीकारकरतेहुए

चकबनदीअिधकारीकाआदेशिदनांक26-6-1999

िनरसतकरिदयाऔर

चकबनदीअिधकारीकोगुणदोषकेआधारपरिनसतारणहेतुपतयावितरतिकये

जानेकाआदेशपािरतिकयािजसकेिवरदिनगरानीनयायालयमेिनगरानीस० 718/4996

सन्2001

अनतगरतधारा48 (1)

िवनोदकुमारआिदबनाम पभावती,

उतरवादीगणदारादािखलकीगईिजससेसवीकारकरतेहुए

अपीलीयनयायालयकोइसिनदेशकेसाथवापसिकयागयािकअपीलकतार

दाराअपीलसभीिबनदुओंपरपकोकोसुनकरिनयमानुसारगुणदोषपर

िनसतारणकरनेकािनदेशपापहुआहै।जैसािकउपसंचालकचकबनदीशी

आर०एल०पजापितकेआदेशिदनांक6-4-09

सेसपषहैिनगरानीनयायालय

केइसीआदेशकेिवरदअपीलानटपभावतीदारामाननीयउचचनयायालयके

समकिरटसंखया25224

सन्09

पभावतीबनामडी०डी०सी०वअनय

दािखलहुईिजससेमाननीयनयायालयदारािदनांक14-5-2009

कोिरट

िपटीशनखािरजकरतेहुएउपसंचालकचकबनदीकेिनणरयकोसहीमानाहै।

चकबनदीअिधकारीदारापािरतआदेशअपनेआपमेपूणरनहीहै

कयोिकरामकरनकीउजूरदारीवदािखलरिजसटडरबैनामाकोसंजानमेनही

िलयागयाहैऔरअपंजीकृतऔरकटे

-

फटेवसीयतनामाकेआधारपरआदेश

पािरतकरकेतुिटिकयाहै।गवाहोकेबयानवजगईकेसगेभाईरामकरनने

सवयंइसबातकोसवीकारिकयाहैिकअपीलानटपभावतीपुतीभागवनतीहै

औरवहीबतौर

( लडकी

)

कानूनीउतरािधकारीमानीजानीचािहएनिक

भतीजाभुलईकेवािरसानिवनोदकुमारआिदिजनकेपकमेिलखागया

वसीयतनामाअपंजीकृतहैऔरमाननेयोगयनहीहैऐसीिसथितमेअपील

सवीकारिकयेजानेयोगयहैऔरचकबनदीअिधकारीकाओदशकायमरहने

योगयनहीहैसवयंचकबनदीअिधकारीनेअपनेआदेशकीिववेचनामेइसबात

काउलेखिकयाहैिकपभावतीज०िव०की०धारा

केतहत्वािरसहो

सकतीथी।िकनतुजगईदारािलखेगयेअपंजीकृतवसीयतनामाकोसंजानमे

लेतेहुएपािरतकरिदयाऔरपभावतीकेपाथरनापतकीिनरसतकरिदया

तथाअनयउजुदािरयोवसाकयजीपभावतीकोभगवनतीवेवाजगईकीपुती

सािबतकरतेथेकाउलेखआदेशमेनहीिकयाहै।चकबनदीअिधकारीका

आदेशिदनॉक

26-6-99

िनरसतिकयाजाताहै।अपीलसवीकारिकयेजाने

योगयहैपभावतीपुतीभागवनतीवेवाजगईकाकानूनीउतरािधकार

( पुती )

घोिषतिकयाजानानयायोिचतहै।

"

¶8In aforesaid circumstances, petitioners herein filed revision petitions which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2011. Relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter: "

उभयपकोकेिवदानअिधवकागणकेतकोंकोसुनागयातथापतावलीका

समयक्अवलोकनिकयागया।पतावलीमेपितपकीपभावतीकीिलिखतबहसभी

उपलबधहै।िलिखतबहसमेकहागयािककिथतवसीयतनामेजगईकोवृदएवंजईफ

कहागयाहै।जबिकपभावतीदारादािखलफौतीजगईजोअिववािदतहै,

जगईकीमृतयु

वषरकीअवसथामेहुईहै45

वषरकावयिककतईबृदएवंजईफनहीकहाजा

सकता।किथतवसीयनामेमेपुतीपभावतीकेरख-

रखावशादीिववाहकौनकरेगा, का

कोईिववरणनहीहै।इसपकारवसीयतनामाअपूणरएवंसिदगधहैतथािवशवसनीयनही

है।वसीयतकेिकसीगवाहनेवसीयतनामाकोसािबतनहीिकयाहै।

पमाणकरणकेिलए

आवशयकहैिकवसीयतनामासमकगवाहवसीयतकतारिलखाजायतथापढकरसुनाया

जायसमकगवाहनवसीयतदसतावेजपरवसीयतकतारपरकाहसताकरहोऔर

वसीयतकतारकेसमकउसकीउपिसथिततथाउसकेिनदेशपरगवाहनदाराहसताकर

िकयाजाय।ऐयाबयानउनकेिकसीगवाहाननेनहीिदयाहै

,

इसपकारकाबयानन

होनेकीिसथितमेवसीयतनामाकतईिबशवसनीयनहीहैवसीयतनामाकेआधारपर

भुलईकाकोईपाथरना

-

पतदािखलखािरजकानहीहै।भुलईजोआपितदीगयीहै

उसमेवसीयतनामाकाकोईिजकनहीहैनतोवसीयतनामेकेआधारपरिकसीअनुतोष

कीमांगकीगयीहै।भगवनतीकेमरनेकेबाद

,

दािखलखािरजकाकेवलएकपाथरना

-

पतपभावतीदारासहायकचकबनदीअिधकारीकेनयायालयमेदािखलहुआिजसपर

भुलईदारािदनांक

16-7-80

कोआपितिकयाहै

,

कोईदािखलखािरजपाथरनापतभुलई

दारानहीिदयागया।पिरवारकेएकमातिजनदाभाईरामकरनथे।रामकरनबयान हहआ।;रतमकरन;नद;पभतवतल;कक;जगई;व;भगवनतल;कद;नत फद ;सद;पहदत;पत ल;कहत;ह।ह ;भगवनतल कक;मकतयत;वदनतनक;27-5-80;कद ;समय;भतईयो;मम;कदवल;रतमकरन;जजनदत;वतररस;रत;उसकद दतरत;वदनतनक;20-01-86;कक;अपनल;जमलन;कत;वसलयतनतमत;अपनल;पत ल;कक;वकयत;गयत तरत;उसल;वसलयतनतमद;मम;भगवनतल;व;जगई;सद;पत्;जमलन;कत;वसलयतनतमत;पभतवतल;पत ल वसलयतनतमत;पभतवतल;पत ल;भगवनतल;कक;वकयत।;वसलयनतमत;रतमकरन;बहक;कदवलपतल;कत दतजखल;खतररज;भल;हक;गयत;ह।ह ;रतम;करन;कक;मकतय;त 1990;मम;हक;चतकक;ह;ह उसकक;जमलन;पर उसकक;पत ल;कदवलपतल;कत;नतम;वसलयतनतमम;कद ;आधतर;पर;दतजखल;खतररज;हक;चतकत;ह।ह रतततपय;यह;हह;वक;वसलयतनतमत;एक;बतर;सतवबत;हक;चतकत;हह;बतर-बतर;सतवबत;वकयद;जतनद कत;औवचतय;नहह;हह;;मत तवबक;वलसयतनतमत;पभतवत;ल;,;भगवनतल;पतनल;जगई;कक;वसलयतल ;वतररस;सतवबत;हह;।;दसततवदज;वसलयतनतमत;वदनतनक;;20-01-86;;;अवववतवदत;हह;इस;पकतर पभतवतल;मकतक;भगवनतल;पतनल;जगई;कक;लडकक;एवन;कतनपनल;वतररस;ह।ह ;वववतवदत;भपवम;कद ;मपल;मतजलक;जगई;पत ;ववशदषर;रहद;जजनकक;मकतय;त वदनतनक;;02-05-64;;कक;हक;गयल;।;मकतय;त कद ;पशचततत;उनकक;जमलन;पर;उनल;?ल;भगवनतल;कत;नतम;दजर;हहई;;.;भगवनतल;कक;मकतय;त वदनतनक ;27-5-80;;;कक;हहई।;इस;पकतर;वववतवदत;भपवम;पर;भगवनतल;कत;नतम;ज०;वव०;अ०;;1950;;व ;वहनदप;उतरतजधकरल;अजधवनयम;;1956;;;कद ;बतद;हककर;असनतम;रहत।;खतनदतन;सजरद;कद ;अनतसतर;ववशदषर;कद ;लडकद ;गयत;;,रतमकरन;जगई;फझजदतर;व;बतबतननदन;रद;तरत;वववतवदत मभपवम;मपल;रप;सद;जगई;कक;रल।;पशनगत;वववतद;म;वववतद;जगई;कक;सगल;पत ल;पभतवतल;व जगई;कद ;भतलजद;भतलई;कद ;लडकद ;ववनकद;कतमतर;वबरनद द;वसलयतनतमत;वदनतनक;08-10-63;कत हह,;जगई;कक;मकतय;वदनतनक;02-05-64;कक;हक;गयल;जगई;कक;पशचततत;भगवनतल;कद ;पक;म;म जकत दतजखल;खतररज;हहआ;वह;वसलयतनतमत;कद;आधतर;पर;नहल;ह।ह ;यवद;वसलयतनतम;म कद;आधतर पर;दतजखल;खतररज;हकतत;तक;उसल;समय;वसलयत;कक;पतवष;हक;गयल;तरत;यह;वनशवचत;हक गयत;हकतत;वक;जब;भगवनतल;मरगद ल;तब;वववतवदत;भपवम;कद ;मतजलक;भतलई;पत ;गयत;हकगद।;इस पकतर;कत;ककई;आददश;वनगरतनलकततरगण;दतरत;न;अवर;नयतयतलय;कद ;समक;न;तक;वनगरतनल नयतयतलय;कद;समक;हल;पसतत ;वकयत;गयत।;जब;भगवनतल;कक;मकतय;त वषर;1980;मम;हहई;उसकद बतद;दतजखल;खतररज;कत;पतररनत;पत;पभतवतल;दतरत;वदयत;गयत;उसम;म आपजत;वदनतनक;16-7-80;कक;मतलई;पत ;गयत;दतरत;दल;गयल;इस;आपजत;म;म भल;भपलई;पत ;गयत;दतरत;यह;कहह नहह;जलखत;गयत;हह;वक;जगई;दतरत;उनकद ;सतर;म;म ककई;वसलयत;गयल;रल।;ऐसल;ससरवत;मम ;वनगरतनलकततरगण;दतरत;जक;वसलयत;जगई;कद ;नतम;सद;वदनतनक;;08-10-63;;कक;दशतरई;गयल;हह ;वह;आफटर;खतट;हह;जक;;1980;;;मम;ज०;वब०;अ०;;1971;;कद ;वनयम;कद ;अनतगरत;सगद;भतई ;कत;अजधकतर;वववतवहत;पत ल;कद ;पहलद;ह।ह ;भगवनतल;कक;मकतय;वदनतनक;;27-05-80;;;करद;हहईत उस;समय;जगई;कद ;भतई;रतम;करन;जलववत;रद;तरत;रतम;करन;हल;वववतवदत;भपवम;कद उतरतजधकतरल;रद;परनतत;रतमकरन;दतरत;वदनतनक;20-1-86;कक;एक;पनजलकत;वसलयतनतमतक जलखल;गयल;जजसमम;उनहकनद;अपनल;भपवम;कत;वतररस;पत ल;कदवलपतल;कक;बनतयत;गयत;तरत जगई;वतलल;भपवम;जक;भगवनतल;मकतक;कद;नतम;रल।;उस;भपवम;कत;वतररस;पभतवतल;पत ल;जगई कक;बनतयत;गयत।;इस;पकतर;रतमकरन;जक;जगई;कद ;सगद;भतई;रद;उनकद ;दतरत;पभतवतल;कक ;जगई;कक;पत ल;मतनत;तरत;अपनद;सवयन;वतररस;कहतद;हहए;पनजलककत;वसलयतनतमत;जलख;वदय;त, मसवयन;रतम;करन;नद;नयतयतलय;म;आकर;सवलकर;वकयत;ह।ह ;यहता;यह;उलदखनलय;हह;वक वसलयतनतमत;वनषपतवदत;करनद;वतलत;वयवक;सवयन;नयतयतलय;मम;आकर;वसलयतनतमद;कक सवलकतर;करतत;हह;तक;ऐसल;ससरवत;मम;वसलयत;कत;परक क;सद;जसद;करनद;कक;आवशयकतत ;नहह;ह;ह ।;वनगरतनलकततरगण;दतरत;जक;सतकय;वदयद;गयद;हह;वक;पभतवतल;जगई;कक;पत ल;नहह;ह;ह, वह;ववशवसनलय;नहल;ह।ह ;रतमकरन;कद ;बयतन;व;रतमकरन;कद ;पनजलकत;वसलतयनतमत;कदक आधतर;पर;यह;जसद;हह;वक;पभतवतल;जगई;कक;लडकक;हह;तरत;जगई;कद ;वतररस;रतमकरन दतरत;पभतवतल;कद ;पक;मम;पनजलककत;वसलयतनतमत;वनषपतवदत;कक;गयल;।;उक;वसलयतनतमम;कद आधतर;पर;कदवलपतल;कत;नतम;दजर;हक;चतकत;हह;तरत;पभतवतल;कद ;पकरण;म;म वववतद;चल रहत;ह।ह ;इस;पकतर;वनगरतनलकततरगण;दतरत;जगई;दतरत;कजरत;अपनजलककत;वसलयतनतमत;जक र;वष;;63;;कत;दशतरयत;गयत;ह।ह ;वह;आफटर;रतट;एवन;सनवदगध;हह;तरत;उसकद ;आधतर;पर;भतलई कद ;पक;मम;वसलयतनतमत;सतकयो;कद ;आधतर;पर;सवतभतववक;रप;सद;पमतवणत;नहल;ह।ह ;अवर ;नयतयतलय;दतरत;पभतवतल;कद ;पक;मम;आददश;पतररत;करकद ;सहल;वनणरय;जलयत;गयत;ह;ह;,;उस आददश;मम;हसतकदप;कक;आवशयकतत;नहल;ह।ह ;अतय;ववनकद;कतमतर;व;बलरनद द;कतमतर;व;वबनय

कुमारपुतगणजगईदारापसतुतिनगरानीिनरसतकरतेहुएबनदोबसतअिधकारीचकबनदी (

पुरानीइकाई)

जौनपुरदारापािरतआदेशिदनांक26.05.10

कीपुिषकीजातीहै।अवर

नयायालयकीपतावलीवापसभेजीजाएतथाइसनयायालयकीपतावलीसंिचत

अिभलेखागारहो। "

¶9Aforesaid orders passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are impugned in the present writ petition.

¶10Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on an order passed by Consolidation Officer that scriber and the witness of an unregistered Will dated 8.10.1963 (Shambhu Narain Lal and Babu Ram Yadav) were examined, who have proved the Will and submitted that no suspicious circumstances surrounded the said Will. However, he fairly submitted that Consolidation Officer has not framed any issue in this regard as well as that in the objection, averments in respect of claim on the basis of Will was not mentioned. Learned counsel for petitioner has assailed the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation on ground that circumstances as held to be suspicious were not based on any material. Once a Will was proved, it could not be disputed on a ground being unregistered.

¶11Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even the order passed by Appellate Authority could be assailed on ground that no issue was framed. Even the parties were asked to submit their evidence. Impugned order was passed only on basis of assumption as well as on surmises and same error was errupted in the order passed by Revisional Authority.

¶12Aforesaid submissions are opposed by learned counsel for respondents. He has placed reliance on an order passed by Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority and submitted that not only the contents of Will were disputed, but it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances also. Initially, no objection was filed on basis of a Will and it was introduced later on.

¶13Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

¶14Before entering into the merits of the case and to consider rival submissions as to whether Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not, I have carefully perused the order passed by Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Revisional Authority.

¶15The order passed by Consolidation Officer was challenged mainly on the ground that the issue of validity of Will was decided in a very cursory manner without even framing issues.

¶16This Court while passing an order on 14.5.2009 has held that since authorities have allowed the parties to lead evidence, therefore, non-framing of issue could not be a ground to remand matter, therefore, Settlement Officer of Consolidation was directed to decide the matter on merits.

¶17This Court has not put a caveat that Appellate Authority cannot frame issues or invite evidence, but Appellate Authority has proceeded only on basis of material available and without even framing any issue decided the appeal in a very cursory manner only on ground that Consolidation Officer has not taken note of the subsequent registered Will and that Consolidation Officer has erred in placing reliance on a very old unregistered Will which was in a very torn condition. The Appellate Authority has not adverted to statements of witnesses to the Will. The same error was committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and further the Revisional Authority has considered a subsequent Will dated 20.1.1986, which was not even considered by Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

¶18This Court has considered the issue as to how a Will has to be proved in Chhatrapal Vs. D.D.C. & Ors, Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:172664, relevant paras 27, 33, 34 and 35 thereof are mentioned hereinafter: "27. The revision petition filed by petitioner and his two brothers was rejected by a detailed order dated 12.09.2019 and above referred findings of Appellate Authority were confirmed as well as Revisional Authority has taken note of certain ambiguity and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses whether 'will' was hand written or typed as well as whether it was registered or not. In the above background before considering the rival submission, it would be apposite to refer few paragraphs of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumari and Others Vs. Surinder Pal Sharma, (2021) 14 SCC 500 where issue of 'how a 'will' be proved', was considered in detail, which are reproduced hereinafter :- "14. Sections 68 and 71 of the Evidence Act, which relate to proof of documents required by law to be attested, read as under: "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.

*

*

*

¶71Proof when attesting witness denies the execution.—If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence."

xxx

xxx

¶16After referring to H. Venkatachala Iyengar (supra), this Court in Jaswant Kaur (supra) had laid down the following propositions of law:

"10…..(1) Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.

(2) Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.

(3) Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.

(4) Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.

(5) It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.

(6) If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." (emphasis supplied) x x x

¶33In order to prove a 'will', the evidence of attesting witnesses and its scriber are relevant. It would be relevant to note here that at relevant time registration of a 'will' was not an essential requirement and in present case as referred above both attesting witnesses were examined and witness Leeladhar and Ram Singh have specifically stated it was executed in their presence and testator and scriber were also present, however, as referred above by Revisional Authority and it would be clear from perusal of statements which are part of supplementary affidavit filed before this Court, that they mentioned the 'will' was in handwriting, whereas undisputedly, contents of 'will' were typed by typewriter, as clearly evident from the photocopy i.e. in Hindi typing on a non-judicial paper and was notarized also and at bottom it was mentioned that being drafted by and typed by Jaidev Gargaon, Advocate, therefore, it has created a doubt that whether witnesses were present, when 'will' was executed and signed by the testator.

¶34There is yet another circumstance which also creates suspicion about truthfulness of witnesses, since witness Leeladhar has stated that 'will' was registered and all persons have appeared before Registrar, whereas undisputedly alleged 'will' was never registered but it was only notarized though the other witness Ram Singh has stated that it was not registered. The other witness Jaidev Gargaon, Advocate has stated that 'will' was scribed by him by pen having new nip but as referred above it was a typed document though he has stated that it was not registered, therefore, it also appears that said advocate was not truthful before authority.

¶35In the background of above doubtful witnesses account, the consideration of other circumstances would become more relevant and for that findings returned by Appellate Court and Revisional Court referred above, become crucial for consideration whether the 'will' was proved, or not especially when alleged 'will' was executed in exclusion of children of testator. In order to consider above suspicious circumstances surrounded the 'will', the paragraph number 25 of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Swarnlatha and others versus Kalavati and others, 2022 SCC online 381 would be relevant that:-

"25. The law relating to suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will is already well-settled and it needs no reiteration. It is enough if we make a reference to one of the recent decisions of this Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta, AIR 2020 SC 544 where this Court referred to almost all previous decisions right from H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443. But cases in which a suspicion is created are essentially those where either the signature of the testator is disputed or the mental capacity of the testator is questioned. This can be seen from the fact that almost all previous decisions of this Court referred to in Kavita Kanwar (supra) list out circumstances, which in the context of the lack of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator, became suspicious circumstances. In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will."

¶19Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India And Another v. Ajay Kumar Sood, (2023) 7 SCC 282, has reiterated the procedure to write a judgment so that the issues involved, arguments raised and the conclusion thereof may be crystalized in a judgment and for reference relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter: "12. In Shakuntala Shukla v. State of U.P. [Shakuntala Shuklav.State of U.P., (2021) 20 SCC 818 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 672] as well, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, was faced with an order [Swami Nath Yadav v. State of U.P., 2018 SCC OnLine All 5465] of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which made it difficult to discern between the submissions of counsel and the reasons of the court. Laying emphasis on the purpose of a judgment, this Court elaborated on what should be the content of a judgment. The Court observed that: (Shakuntala Shukla case [Shakuntala Shukla v.State of U.P.,

(2021) 20 SCC 818 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 672] , SCC para 9) "9. …9.2. … "Judgment" means a judicial opinion which tells the story of the case; what the case is about; how the court is resolving the case and why. "Judgment" is defined as any decision given by a court on a question or questions or issue between the parties to a proceeding properly before court. It is also defined as the decision or the sentence of a court in a legal proceeding along with the reasoning of a Judge which leads him to his decision. The term "judgment" is loosely used as judicial opinion or decision. Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland, in her speech once stated that there are four purposes for any judgment that is written:

(i) to spell out Judge's own thoughts;

(ii) to explain your decision to the parties;

(iii) to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and

(iv) to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider.

9.3.It is not adequate that a decision is accurate, it must also be reasonable, logical and easily comprehensible. … What the court says, and how it says it, is equally important as what the court decides.

9.4. Every judgment contains four basic elements and they are (i) statement of material (relevant) facts, (ii) legal issues or questions, (iii) deliberation to reach at decision, and (iv) the ratio or conclusive decision. A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading a judgment. In the Path of Law, Holmes, J. has stressed the insentient factors that persuade a Judge. A judgment has to formulate findings of fact, it has to decide what the relevant principles of law are, and it has to apply those legal principles to the facts. The important elements of a judgment are:

(i) Caption

(ii) Case number and citation

(iii) Facts

(iv) Issues

(v) Summary of arguments by both the parties

(vi) Application of law

(vii) Final conclusive verdict

9.5. The judgment replicates the individuality of the Judge and therefore it is indispensable that it should be written with care and caution. The reasoning in the judgment should be intelligible and logical. Clarity and precision should be the goal. All conclusions should be supported by reasons duly recorded. The findings and directions should be precise and specific. Writing judgments is an art, though it involves skilful application of law and logic. We are conscious of the fact that the Judges may be overburdened with the pending cases and the arrears, but at the same time, quality can never be sacrificed for quantity. Unless judgment is not in a precise manner, it would not have a sweeping impact. There are some judgments that eventually get overruled because of lack of clarity. Therefore, whenever a judgment is written, it should have clarity on facts; on submissions made on behalf of the rival parties; discussion on law points and thereafter reasoning and thereafter the ultimate conclusion and the findings and thereafter the operative portion of the order. There must be a clarity on the final relief granted. A party to the litigation must know what actually he has got by way of final relief. The aforesaid aspects are to be borne in mind while writing the judgment, which would reduce the burden of the appellate court too. We have come across many judgments which lack clarity on facts, reasoning and the findings and many a times it is very difficult to appreciate what the learned Judge wants to convey through the judgment and because of that, matters are required to be remanded for fresh consideration. Therefore, it is desirable that the judgment should have a clarity, both on facts and law and on submissions, findings, reasonings and the ultimate relief granted."

¶20I have carefully perused the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation and both have failed not only in respect of consideration of validity of a Will whether registered or not as well as have not considered evidence (oral and documentary) on record but also in respect of writing the orders. Both the authorities have passed orders in a very cryptic manner and it appears that orders were passed in haste. The orders impugned are bereft of complete facts, legal issues, deliberations and conclusions. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 22.7.2011 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and 26.5.2010 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation are set-aside and the matter is remitted to the Settlement Officer of Consolidation to pass a fresh order and if necessary, frame issues and grant opportunity of hearing or to lead evidence to the parties if circumstances so warrant and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of six months from today.

¶21The prayer sought in Writ Petition No. 419 of 2021 is to quash order dated 02.02.2021, passed in revision petition by Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby an application for transfer was disposed of with direction for reconstruction of file. By above order, matter was remitted to Settlement Officer of Consolidation for fresh consideration, therefore, no order is required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶22The prayers sought in Writ Petition No.1275 of 2023 is to quash order dated 17.03.2023 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby revision petition was posted for hearing. Since by this judgment matter is remitted to Settlement Officer of Consolidation for fresh consideration, therefore, no interference is warranted in impugned order.

¶23With the aforesaid directions all the writ petitions are disposed of. Order Date :-19.10.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad