Judgments - Will
ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. VERSUS SM. RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.
Akhilesh Kumar Alias Hansu versus Shri Sarad Chandra Bhate
HARISH ISHWARBHAI PATEL VERSUS JATIN ISHWARBHAI PATEL
Aman Sharma & Anr. Versus Umesh & Ors.
MUNNI DEVI ALIAS NATHI DEVI (DEAD) THR LRS. VERSUS RAJENDRA ALIAS LALLU LAL (DEAD) THR LRS. AND ORS.
SWARNALATHA & ORS. VERSUS KALAVATHY & ORS.
HARDIAL SINGH VERSUS BALBIR KAUR & ANR.
JOGI RAM Versus SURESH KUMAR & ORS.
MURTHY & ORS. VS. C. SARADAMBAL & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS HARNAM SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
VANEETA KHANNA & ORS VERSUS VIKRAM SEHGAL
Hariprasad Bairagi Versus Radheshyam & Ors
Law laid down:- (i) Rules 24 & 32 of Rules Regarding Record of Rights (under M.P. Land Revenue Code) do not contemplate adjudication of title by Tahsildar. It is meant for recording “Consequence of Adjudication” and “Transfer of Ownership” for mutation purpose. Summary proceedings as contemplated in Rule 32 are only for the purpose of recording of rights of parties; and (ii) Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction to test the correctness and genuineness of the Will; {Relied and Refeerred:-Ramgopal Kanhaiyalal Vs. Chetu Full Judgment
Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors. Versus Sarjug Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors.
Ranjit alias Bhaiyu Mohite Vs. Smt. Nandita Singh & Ors.
DR. RAJDEEP KAPOOR VS. MOHD. SARWAR KHAN AND ANOTHER
Law laid down - Evidence Act with strict technicalities is not applicable in mutation proceedings. Revenue Officer is only required to do enquiry to reach satisfaction in respect of evidence filed regarding acquisition of rights over land. Examination on oath and cross-examination need not be done by Tehsildar in mutation proceedings. Full Judgment