- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following. The property in dispute relates to Khata Nos. 22 and 142 of village Kermeni Premwalia, Distt. Deoria. The respondents 3 to 7 and one Smt. Samundri filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and prayed that the name of the recorded tenure holders be expunged and their names may be recorded contending that one Smt. Rojhani was the tenure holder of the disputed property; she died in the year 1966 and they were entitled to the said property by succession. There was no dispute between parties that the properties belonged to Ram Subhag. The said property was recorded in his name in Khatauni of 1332 Fasali. The appellants contested the claim of Respondents 3 to 7 and Smt. Samundri on the ground that after the death of Smt. Rojhani in the year 1966, Mahaveer and Udit became entitled to succession under Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Jamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (for short the Act). In the said proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the respondents examined Shanker and one Kuber Pandey in support of their claim. The Appellant No. 1 himself entered into witness-box to support his claim and one Sudendar was also examined as DW 2. The Appellants contended that Mahadev, the husband of Smt. Rojhani died after the death of Ram Subhag, hence succession to Smt. Rojhani was governed by Section 171 of the Act. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3-5-1979 allowed the objections of the Respondents and granted relief. The appellants filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The said appeal was allowed on 2-8-80 and the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside. This time the respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, questioning the validity and correctness of the order dated 2-8-80 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director, on detailed examination of respective contentions in the light of the material placed on record, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal was not sustainable. In the view he took, the revision petition was allowed and the Order dated 2-8-80 passed in the appeal by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was set aside and the order dated 3-5-1979 of the Consolidation Officer was confirmed. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 30-3-1981 passed in revision, the appellants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9716/81 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court after examining the rival submissions made, dismissed the writ petition finding no merit in it. Hence this appeal. 2. Having regard to the contentions raised and the nature of the dispute, it is necessary to look to the pedigree of the family of Ram Subhag, given below :- Ram Subhag Mahadev Mahaveer Udit Rojhani (Widow) Komal Ram Chandra Samundri Devi (daughter) Shanker Aaras Satya Narain Kapil Dev Prabhu Nath
(3.) In the order dated 30-3-1981 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it is recorded thus :- "Both parties admit that if Mahadev died during the lifetime of Ram Subhag and the name of Rojhani was however recorded during the lifetime of Ram Subhag, then it will be deemed to be self-acquired and after the death of Rojhani, it will not be decided under Section 171 but under Section 174 and in case Mahadev died after Ram Subhag, then it will be decided under Section 171 after the death of Rojhani.";