Rajendra Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.

This is a case, wherein, the question of execution of Will dated 18-11-92 is involved.

The petitioner made an application before the Tehsildar, Pendra Road for mutation of the lands under ownership of Smt. Sushila Bai. The Tehsildar, Pendra Road, on the basis of registered Will dated 18-11-92, directed the mutation in the name of the petitioner by order dated 14-7-2003, on the grounds that no objection was raised by any party.

Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (for short ''the SDO''), Pendra Road, being Appeal Case No. 9/A-6/2003-04. The SDO, Pendra Road, rejected the appeal on 28-7-2006 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred a review application before the SDO (Revenue), Pendra Road, which was allowed by order dated 14-5-2007 (Annexure P-3), holding that deceased Sushila Bai used to sign in the documents, but on the registered Will dated 18-11-92 there is a thumb impression of Smt. Sushila Bai, and as such detailed scrutiny of the Will is required. It was further observed that the dispute may be resolved by the Civil Court only.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Pendra Road. The Additional Collector, Pendra Road, by order dated 29-5-2007 (Annexure P-4), allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 14-5-2007, passed by the SDO in review application.

Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, Chhattisgarh. The Board of Revenue, after having considered all the facts, came to conclusion that there is irregularity in the Will as such the authenticity of the said Will dated 18-11-92 can be established by the Civil Court alone.

Shri Dhote, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no suit is pending, as the suit filed before the Civil Judge Class II, Pendra Road, for declaration, permanent and injunction possession was rejected on 30-6-2007 (Annexure P-6).

The Board of Revenue, while dealing the case, found that the application for setting aside the order dated 30-6-2007 has been filed before the Civil Judge, Class II, and the same is pending consideration. The Board also found that there is irregularity in the Will. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue, vide order dated 6-5-2008, affirmed the order dated 14-5-2007, passed by the SDO, Pendra Road and allowed the appeal. The Board of Revenue observed as under:

^izdj.k dk lw{e ijh{k.k djus ,oa fo}ku vf/koDrkvks dk rdZ lquus ds i''pkr~ fLFkfr ;g curh gS fd rglhynkj] is.M�k jksM us ukekarj.k ds laca/k es fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ,oa fu;eks dk ikyu u djus djrs gq, vkyksP; vkns''k fnukad 14&7&2003 ikfjr fd;k gS tks fLFkj j[kus ;ksX; gS] tcfd fo}ku vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh us vius vkns''k fnukad 14&5&2007 esa izdj.k dk lgh ijh{k.k ,oa fo''ys"k.k dj vkns''k ikfjr fd;k gS] tjs dk;e j[kus ;ksX; gS A fo}ku vfrfjDr dysDVj ds U;k;ky; ds izdj.k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd mUgksus izdj.k essa tYnckth esa fujkdj.k djus dk iz;kl djrs gq, izdj.k iathc) gksus ds fnukad ls 13 fnu ds vUnj gh vkyskP; vkns''k fnukad 29&5&2007 ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ftles mUgksus vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] is.M�k jksM ds vkns''k dks fujLr dj dkuwuh xyrh dh gS A olh;rukek es Hkh Lo- lq''khykckbZ dks ,d LFkku ij vaxwBk yxkuk ik;k x;k gS tcfd nwljs es fu;fer gLrk{kj djuk ik;k x;k gS A bl rjg olh;rukek dh lafnX/krk ij ''kadk mRiUu gksrh gS A ,slh fLFkfr eas vfrfjDr dysDVj }kjk ikfjr vkns''k fLFkj j[kus ;ksX; ugh gS A QyLo:i fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gS A ,oa vfrfjDr dysDVj dk vkns''k fnukad 29&5&2007 fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh dk vkns''k fnukad 14&5&2007 fLFkj j[kk tkrk gS A

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties; peruse the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the said Will dated 18-11-92 is doubtful and the same cannot be decided by Revenue Court to ascertain genuineness of the said Will.

Be that as it may, the matter can be considered only by the Civil Court, as admitted that the first suit for declaration and injunction of possession, filed by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was rejected. Further, it is clearly recorded by the Board of Revenue that the application for setting aside the order dated 30-6-2007 has been filed before the Civil Judge, Class II, Pendra Road, and the same is pending consideration before the Civil Court.

The order is perfect, valid and unexceptionable, thus, no interference is warranted.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.