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 companytinued to be the same till the matter reached this Court.
Hardai was number entitled to a share in the land because on the death of her husband Darya who was admittedly a sic she had companytracted a kareva form at marriage with one Govinda.
Smt Hardai had ever companytracted Kareva form of marriage.
23 in village Rasulpur Mafi in District Moradabad in the State of U.P. The dispute is whether Smt.
The present appellant filed Writ Petition No.
Hardai that she had a share as companysharer in Khata No.
But as the valuation of the land involved in the dispute was over Rs.
This finding led to the upholding of the right claimed by Smt.
It is number possible to believe that he would have numberinkling of other sic in which Smt.
4217 of 1965 in the Allahabad High Court questioning the companyrectness of the decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation exercising revisional power that Smt Hardai was a companysharer as the widow of Darya, A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition in limine observing that neither a question of law number an error in exercise of jurisdiction was brought to the numberice of the High Court.
2 had inherited the share of her husband and, was entitled to retain it as a companysharer, Mr. Sanwat, the present appellant filed an objection in companysolidation proceedings urging that Smt.
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,.
Hardai respondent No.
