Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 605 (ALL)

M. Gama v. Bittan

1989-07-31

RAM LAL

body1989
JUDGMENT 1. This is a revision filed by one Gama against the order dated 6.2.75 of the Collector, Faizabad, maintaining the order of the trial court dated 31.10.74 passed in a mutation case. 2. Facts giving rise to the present case are that the revisionist sought mutation on the basis that he was son of the deceased Sukhmangal. Smt. Bittan, O. P. also filed a mutation report claiming that she was the daughter of the deceased and as such is legal heir. After hearing the parties the trial court, vide its order dated 31.10.74, held that the revisionist Gama was not the son of the deceased and further held that Smt. Bittan, O.P. was the daughter of the deceased. Against this order a revision was preferred before the Collector which was dismissed giving rise to the present revisionpetition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist alone as none is present on behalf of the O. P. Mst. Bittan despite publication in 'Dainik Jagran' newspaper dated 7.4.89, of Lucknow issue. O. P. Mst. Bachchi is represented by her counsel. 4. Both the counsels argued their case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the finding of the courts below is erroneous as in the presence of Smt. Bachchi, O. P., widow of the deceased Sukhmangal, a married daughter Mst. Bittan, O. P. shall not succeed. According to him Mst. Bachchi continued to be the widow of the deceased, her marriage having not been dissolved. The courts below have not considered the legal aspects of the case from correct view point. On behalf of Smt. Bachchi, O. P., the learned counsel argued that she is the preferential heir u/s 171 U. P. ZA & LR Act. 5. I have given consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. 6. From a perusal of the objection filed by the O. P. Smt. Bittan it will be seen that she also took the plea of a registered will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Sukhmangal in her favour. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that Smt. Bittan O. P. is married daughter of the deceased. The will has also been discarded as in respect of Sirdari land. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact that Smt. Bittan O. P. is married daughter of the deceased. The will has also been discarded as in respect of Sirdari land. Further it has also been held that the revisionist Gama is not the son of the deceased, The finding being concurrent cannot be upset in the revisional jurisdiction. 7. Mst. Bachchi, O. P., although has not filed any objection on submitted any mutation report for the heirship of the deceased nor she filed any appeal or revision against the impugned orders but under law if it is proved that she is the widow of the deceased she shall be the preferential legal heir u/s 171 of the U. P. ZA & LR Act in presence of a daughter. In her crossexamination Smt. Bittan has stated as follows : Mohd, Ismail is the witness of Mst. Bittan. In his examinationinchief he has stated as follows: 8. A perusal of the above statements show that the deceased had remarried Mst. Bachchi after the death of his first wife Jagdei. On the ground that Mst. Bachchi had been driven out by Sukhmangal and the reason that she was having bad character, legally it may not be inferred that her marital relations with the deceased Sukhmangal had ceased. There is no evidence on record that the marriage had been dissolved as provided under law. Neither the revisionist nor Smt. Bittan had tendered any evidence that Sukhmangal divorced Mst. Bachchi. 9. In view of this legal position' I am of the opinion that Mst. Bachchi's status will be that of widow of the deceased and she will, therefore, succeed to the property/holding of the deceased in the presence of Mst. Bittan, who is his daughter. 10. In view of what has been stated above, the revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders of the courts below, to the effect that Smt. Bittan shall be the legal heir of the deceased, set aside. It is ordered that the name of Mst. Bachchi O.P. shall be mutated in place of the deceased Sukhmangal over the land in dispute. Let the papers be corrected accordingly.