S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THE dispute in the present case is in respect of Khata No. 366 of village Rura Khurd, Pargana Bidhuna, district Ecawan. This Khata was recorded in the names of the Petitioners in the basic year. The opposite party No. 5 filed an objection and claimed co tenure holder's right with the Petitioners and other opposite parties Nos. 3, 4 and 6 to 8. The claim of the opposite party No. 5 for co -tenancy was based amongst other grounds on a decree passed by the Judicial Officer in the year 1954 Under Section 59 of the UP Tenancy Act. The claim of co -tenure holder's right was resisted by the Petitioners, who claimed to be sole tenure holders and alleged in the objection that the decree passed Under Section 59 was obtained by fraud. It was specifically stated in the objection that the Petitioners had neither signed nor filed in court the written statement alleged to have been filed on their behalf.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties the Consolidation Officer framed as many as five issues. Issues Nos. 4 and 5 were as follows: Issue No. 4: - -Whether the judgment and decree of suit referred above is based on fraud? Issue No. 5: - -Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the point of fraud? Having formulated the above two issues, the Consolidation Officer held that the Consolidation Officer was not competent to decide the question of fraud and it was beyond the jurisdiction of that authority. Having come to this conclusion, the Consolidation Officer held that the decree passed in suit Under Section 59 operated as res judicata. Accordingly he rejected the Petitioners objection and held that the parties were co tenure holders. An appeal was preferred against his decision and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) disagreed with the Consolidation Officer and held that the judgment passed in the year 1954 did not operate as res judicata between the parties and directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merits.
(3.) A revision was preferred against his decision. The Director (Consolidation) set aside the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and restored that of the Consolidation Officer.;