Case: Sanwat Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others

Mr. Sanwat, the present appellant filed an objection in consolidation proceedings urging that Smt. Hardai was not entitled to a share in the land because on the death of her husband Darya who was admittedly ar she had contracted a kareva form of marriage with one Govinda. After a remand at one stage, it was ultimately held that the present appellant had failed to prove that after the death of Darya, the first respondent, Smt. Hardai had ever contracted Kareva form of marriage. This finding led to the upholding of the right claimed by Smt. Hardai that she had a share asr in Khata No. 23. The present appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4217 of 1965 in the Allahabad High Court questioning the correctness of the decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising revisional power that Smt. Hardai was ar as the widow of Darya. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition in limine observing that "neither a question of law nor an error in exercise of jurisdiction was brought to the notice of the an error in exercise of jurisdiction was brought to the notice of the High Court". But as the valuation of the land involved in the dispute was over Rs. 20, 000, this appeal was filed by certificate under Article 133(1) (a) granted by the High Court on the basis of valuation of the property first involved in the dispute and continued to be the same till the matter reached this Court.

Reasoning:
Below the endorsement it is stated that it was signed by the persons whose signature, designation and status are illegible. Smt. Hardai was admittedly illiterate. Herk is also illegible. Who attested her thumb is not indicated. But the major infirmity is that Smt. Hardai was never confronted with her alleged statement and she was not given an opportunity to affirm, deny or explain the statement. When this was pointed out Mr. Sharma suggested a remand. After a quarter of a century during which these proceedings are pending we consider the request unjust and unfair and reject it3. If all the infirmities enumerated here are summed up, it would be impossible to place any reliance on thisd statement of Smt. Hardai which contains an admission. We, therefore, propose to place no reliance on it4. Now if the alleged statement of Smt. Hardai is excluded from any or further consideration no case is made out for interference with order under challenge.