Allahabad High Court
Kapil Ram Pandey And Another vs Board Of Revenue And Another on 11 March, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 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. 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 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 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 cross-examination 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 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:-
न्यायालय तहसीलदार-घोरावल, जनपद सोनभद्र 1- वाद संख्या-469, अन्तर्गत धारा 34/भू०रा०अधि० कपिल राम, बृजेश राम प्रति रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा लोहामण्डी।
2- वाद संख्या 896, अन्तर्गत धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधि० कपिलराम, बृजेश राम प्रति रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा बेलवनियां।
3- वाद संख्या 581, अन्तर्गत धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधि० मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिल राम, बृजेश राम प्रति रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा लोहा मण्डी।
4- वाद संख्या 582, अन्तर्गत धारा 34/ भू०रा०अधि० मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिल राम, बृजेश राम प्रति रघुनाथ प्रसाद बावत मौजा बेलवनिया।
सर्वप्रथम पंजीकृत वसीयत 19.2.2002 का परीक्षण किया जा रहा है। इस वसीयत पर चस्पा की गई फोटो को स्व० रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के फोटो के रूप में दोनों हासिया के गवाहों ने स्वीकार किया है। मीरा पाण्डेय की ओर से यह प्रतिवाद नहीं किया गया है कि यह फोटो रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय की नहीं है। यही व्यक्ति दिनांकः 19.02.2002 को उपनिबन्धक घोरावल के यहां उपस्थित होकर वसियत का निस्पादन सुन समझ कर स्वीकार किया है, जैसा कि उपनिबन्धक के पृष्ठांकर दिनांकः 19.2.2002 से स्पष्ट है। इस पंजीकृत वसीयत के हासिया के दो गवाह हैं एक ईश्वर प्रसाद तथा दूसरे जय प्रसाद पाठक। दोनों ने न्यायालय में उपस्थित होकर वसीयत के निस्पादन को स्वीकार किया है। ईश्वर प्रसाद जो कि मृतक के नौसर्गिक निकटतम वारिस तथा कपिल राम व बृजेश राम के पिता हैं, के ब्यान को एक क्षण के लिए अलग भी कर दें तो जय प्रसाद पाठक ने अपने बयान में कहा है कि " वकील साहब सुदा वसीयत को पढ़कर सुनाए। सुनने व समझने के बाद रघुनाथ अपना नि०अं० लगाए। अं० नि० मेरी व ईश्वर प्रसाद की उपस्थिति में रघुनाथ ने अपना नि०अं० लगाए। रघुनाथ की उपस्थिति में मैं और ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय ने बतौर गवाह अपना०-अपना हस्ताक्षर बनाया। वसीयतनामा में चिपकाए गए फोटो को देखकर गवाह ने बताया कि यह फोटो रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय पुत्र बैकुण्ठ प्रसाद पाण्डेय का है।" इस प्रकार गवाह ने एक ही सीटिंग में एक दूसरे की उपस्थिति में एक दूसरे को वसीयत पर हस्ताक्षर/अं०नि० लगाने की बात स्वीकार की है। इससे सम्पत्ति अन्तण अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अनुसार वसीयत के अटेसटेशन प्रमाणित होते हैं।
अब इसी जय प्रसाद पाठक के बयान के प्रति परीक्षण के अंश को देखते हैं, इसमे गवाह ने कहा कि " रघुनाथ पाण्डेय को मैनें देखा है। वे चलने फिरने में वसीयत लिखने के दिन पूर्णतया असमर्थ थे। ठेला से लादकर आए थे। जितना देर तक वसीयत की लिखी पढ़ी हुयी रघुनाथ उसी ठेले पर सोये रहे। लिखा पढ़ी के बाद हमने या मसविदाकर्ता द्वारा उनसे न तो कुछ पूछा गया और न ही उन्हें पढकर सुनाया गया। वसीयत लिखने के बाद उसी ठेले पर ले जाया गया उसी जगह उनका नि०अं० लगवाया गया।" उस बयान में भी गवाह ने रघुनाथ को नि०अं० लगाने की बात स्वीकार की है, परन्तु अपने मुख्य परीक्षा के ब्यान से हटकर एक तथ्य यह भी कहा है कि रघुनाथ चलने फिरने में असमर्थ थे तथा उनसे कुछ पूछा नहीं गया और न वसीयत पढकर सुनायी गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में उपनिबन्धक का पृष्ठांकन दिनांक 19.2.2002 जो कि उनके द्वारा अपने पदीय राजकीय दायित्व के तहत किया गया है महत्वपूर्ण है, इसमें उपनिबन्धक घोरावल ने स्पष्ट रूप से यह लिखा है कि " इस पत्र के विषय व सम्पादन को सुनसमझ कर श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद उक्त ने स्वीकार किया" इससे स्पष्ट है कि वसीयत के निस्पादन को श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद को सुनाया व समझाया गया था और निस्पादन को श्री रघुनाथ प्रसाद को सुनाया व समझाया गया था और उन्होनें उसे स्वीकार करते हुए निस्पादिन किया है। मैं कपिल राम के विद्वान के अधिवक्ता के इस कथन से सहमत हूँ कि गवाह जय प्रसाद पाठक ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में दबाव में कुछ हटकर टिप्पणी की है, परन्तु रघुनाथ प्रसाद के नि०अं० लगाने की बात को स्वीकार किया है। इस प्रकार गवाह मूल रूप से निस्पादन को स्वीकार करते दिखता है। वसीयत भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 68 के अनुसार साबित है।
सुबसे मुख्य बात यह है कि मीरा पाण्डेय के पास में अपंजीकृत वसीय 2.3.2002 में कपिल व बृजेश के पक्ष में लिखे गए वसीयत दिनांक 19.2.2002 को स्वीकार किया गया है तथा उसे निरस्त करने की बात इस वसीयतनामा 2.3.2002 में है। इस प्रकार इस दृष्टि से भी दिनांक 19.2.2002 को कपिल राम व बृजेश राम के पक्ष में निस्पादित पंजीकृत वसीयत सिद्ध है।
अब मीरा पाण्डेय, कपिल राम व बृजेश राम के पक्ष में लिखे गए अपंजीकृत वसीयत 2.3.2002 पर विचार किया जा रहा है। वाद में निस्पादित वसीयत ही प्रभावी भी होगी। लेकिन वसीयत को भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम की धारा 68 तथा सम्पत्ति अन्तरण अधिनियम की धारा 3 के अन्तर्गत प्रमाणित होना अनिवार्य है। मीरा पाण्डेय द्वारा 2.3.2002 को अपने पक्ष में रघुनाथ द्वारा वसीयत लिखने की बात कही जा रही है, परन्तु उनके द्वारा रघुनाथ मृतक के मृत्यु की वास्तविक तिथि का कोई अभिलेखीय साक्ष्य नहीं दिया गया है, जिससे यह सिद्ध हो सके कि निस्पादन की तथाकथित तिथि पर निस्पादनकर्ता जीवित भी था या नहीं। यह मान भी लें कि 2.3.2002 को रघुनाथ प्रसाद जीवित थे, ऐसी स्थिति में वसीयत दिनांक 2.3.2002 के परीक्षण पर क्या तथ्य आतें हैं?
जैसा कि ऊपर के प्रस्तरों में विवेचनोंपरान्त यह निष्कर्ष प्रमाणित है कि कपिल राम व बृजेश के पक्ष में निष्पादित वसीयत 19.2.2002 प्रमाणित तथा उभय पक्षों को स्वीकार है, इसलिए इस वसीयत पर बने रघुनाथ के अं०नि० तथा दिनांक 2.3.2002 को मीरा पाण्डेय आदि के वसीयत पर बने रघुनाथ के अं०नि० के सामान्य मिलान से दिनांक 2.3.2002 के वसीयत की प्रमाणिकता सिद्ध हो सकती है। दिनांक 19.2.2002के वसीयत पर रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंगूठा निशान जो बने है, सामान्यता नंगी आंखों से देखने पर भी उसमें जो रेखायें दिखती है उनसे अंगूठा के बीच में घुमावदार चक्र "चक्र" जैसी आकृति बन रही है। दिनांक 2.3.2002 के वसीयत पर रघुनाथ प्रसाद पाण्डेय के अंगूठा के जो निशान बने है, सामान्य तथा नंगी अॉख देखने पर ही उसमें जो रेखायें दिखती है उनसे अंगूठा बीछ में कोई "चक्र" जैसी आकृति नहीं बनती है, बल्कि घुमावदार रेखायें अंगूठा के प्रथम पोर के ऊपरी हिस्से पर "शंख" जैसी आकृति बनती है। अंगूठा के निशान में उभरी रेखाओं के घुमाव व टर्निंग में भिन्नता नंगी अॉखों से ही देखी जा सकती, इसके लिए किसी विशेषज्ञ की राय लेने की भी आवश्यकता नहीं है। भारतीय साक्ष्य अधिनियम में स्पष्ट प्राविधान है कि न्यायालय स्वंय भी विशेषज्ञ के रूप में व्यवहार कर सकता है। ऐसी स्थिति में दिनांक 19.2.2002 की प्रमाणित वसीयत पर बने रघुनाथ के अंगूठा निशान की तुलना में दिनांक 2.3.2002 की वसीयत पर बने अंगूठा के निशान भिन्न हैं तथा रघुनाथ के अंगूठा के निशान नहीं हो सकते हैं।
अतः दिनांक 2.3.2002की वसीयत की परिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्यों पर विचार करतें है। दिनांक 2.3.2002 की वसीयत टंकित है तथा हसियें के गवाह चंद्रमणि द्वारा यह भी कहा गया है कि वसीयत की लिखा पढी तहसील मुख्यालय पर की गई है। तहसील मुख्यालय पर मात्र चंद कदमों पर स्थित उपनिबंधक कार्यालय में पंजीयन न होने के विषय में गवाह ने मात्र यह कहा है कि पंजीयन के लिए समय नहीं था। गवाह ने वसीयत पूर्ण होने का समय चार-पांच बजे बताया है। उपनिबंधक कार्यालय पाँच बजे तक खुला रहता है और यह कहना कि समयाभाव के कारण पंजीयन नहीं हो सका, बिल्कुल तथ्य से हट कर है। इस प्रकार परिस्थितियों यह प्रदर्शित करती है कि 2.3.2002 वसीयत प्रूवड नहीं है।
उपर्युक्त विवेचन के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा हूँ कि दिनांक 19.2.2002 की पंजीकृत वसीयत प्रूवड है तथा दिनांक 2.3.2002 की अपंजीकृत वसीयत प्रूवड नहीं है, ईश्वर प्रसाद के पक्ष में प०क० 11 क का पारित आदेश भी जो कि धारा 171 में पारित किया गया है, अब धारा 169 में वसीयत प्रूवड होने के कारण निरस्त होने योग्य है।
आदेश ग्राम बेलवनिया की वर्तमान खतौनी 1408-1412 एफ खाता 81 तथा 101 से मृतक रघुनाथ पुत्र बैकुण्ठ राम नि० ग्राम बेलवनिया का नाम पृथक करके पंजीकृत वसीयत के आधारपर कपिल राम व बृजेश राम पुत्रगण ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय नि० बेलवनियीं का नाम बतौर वारित दर्ज हो। प०क० 11 क का आदेश 16.6.2002 निरस्त हो।
ग्राम लोहामण्डी की खतौनी वर्ष 1405-1410 फ० के खाता 9 तथा 118 से बने वर्तमान खतौन 1411-1416 एफ के खाता 9 से मृतक रघुनाथ पुत्र बैकुण्ठ राम नि० ग्राम बेलवनियां का नाम (गैर गुन्दर्ज खतौनी), ईश्वर प्रसाद पुत्र बैकुण्ठ प्रसाद मुन्दर्ज खतौनी (केवल पूण खतौन 1405 1410 एफ के खाता 9, 118 के बावत) का नाम पृथक करके पंजीकृत वसीयतनामा के आधार पर कपिल राम व बृजेश राम पुत्रगण ईश्वर प्रसाद पाण्डेय नि० बेलवनिया का नाम दर्ज हो। प०क० 11का आदेश 17.6.2002 निरस्त हो। वाद अमलदरामद दाखिल दफतर हो।
ह०अप० तहसीलदार 25.3.2004 (सत्य प्रतिलिप)
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 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 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.
OrderDate:-11.3.2024 C.Prakash (Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)