I want to share the dispute of property in UP .
The details are as follows. My Mothers father belongs to Sikanderabad. He was in possession of 60 bigha agriculture land in Sikanderabad (UP). His property was ancestral. He was blessed with three daughters and Without Son. My Nani Ji Mother of my Mother expired in 1975.
After her Expire My Nana Ji made a will in 1975 in favour of three elder son of each daughters equally. .
Then again one of mother sister elder son get the will again in 1988. And as per 1988 will ,one sister will get 30 big-ha and rest other two will get 15 big-ha each and this will was registered.
Then again Nana Ji made another will in 1990. Which was unregistered. and mention equal share for all the three sisters.
My Nana ji expired in 1991. Then Only all the three get open . and every Receipent claim for the property.
My all three Mother and mothers sister were surprised to see that. At last case went to court and SDM Sikanderabad. It was continue till 1993. After that one verbal agreement was made and it was acceptable to all three and that agreement was presented in sdm office and as per compromise two sister get 3/10 share and one sister get 4/10 share , Whose will was registered and done in 1988. As per agreement share and direction and kila no alloted by chakbandi officer. But account was common.
Till 2010. Every thing was smooth . In 2010 . Whose share was 4/10 , filed a case for 30 bigh as per 1988 registered will. And three days back SDM Sikanderabad gave the decision on the base of will and reject the verbal agreement a stating that chakbandi cancel. Hence that verbal agreement and killa no allotment by chakbandi cancel in toto.
I am surprise to here the decision of sdm. When our Mother name is registered since 1993. revenue records of sikanderabad since 1993 till date without any problem. How it can change . Now all the witesser of verbal compromise are no more live. And My Mother and other Other Mother Sister are expire in 2010. Only One sister alive.
Pls guide me , I am the victim of this decision.
CP Yadav 09810261185
email id:- firstname.lastname@example.org
Asked 11 months ago in Property Law from Sikanderbad, Uttar Pradesh
1)if any compromise is arrived at between parties during pendency of court case it has to be reduced to writing . the consent terms have to be filed in court
2)you have stated that agreement was presented in SDM court in 1993 and no alloted by officer .
3)if one of the aunts filed a case in 2010 on basis of will were the legal heirs of 2 sisters served?
4) was the SDM court attention drawn to order passed by SDM court in 1993 ?
5) was the court informed of mutation entry done on basis of SDM order?
6) you should contact a local lawyer file an appeal against SDM order as agreement entered in 1993 by the parties and recorded by court superseded the will
From your contents it can be noted that nobody approached civil court for either enforcing the 1990 unregistered will nor for partition considering the properties to be intestate.
The SDM is sub-divisional magistrate;
This is a matter to be dealt with by the civil court and not by executive magistrate court.
The executive magistrate court will do anything for the sake of money and you may not get justice
Your mother should file a partition suit based on the will executed in the year 1990 seeking her legitimate share in the property and also to implead the land revenue officer as a party for correcting the land records in her name insofar as her share in the property is concerned.
1. It is not clear on what basis you claim the property as ancestral. If it was ancestral your maternal grandfather could make a will of only his share in the property, not beyond it.
2. It seems on the basis of a verbal agreement the case was withdrawn without a consent decree being passed and then mutation was carried out. Revenue records are relevant only for revenue purposes and they do not prove the title. Be that as it may, you should consult a lawyer with a copy of the decree passed by the trial court which can be challenged in the higher courts.