S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment of respondents No. 1 and 2 dated 4.3.1983 and 7.6.1977 as contained in Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition respectively.
(2.) The dispute between the parties initially related in respect to the land comprised in 4 Knatas i.e. Khata No. 240, 166, 49 and 33 situate in village Bhanti, Pargana Sikanderpur Poorvi, District Ballia. In the basic year Khatauni, Khata Nos. 240 and 166 were recorded in the name of Basgit - father of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and land of Khata Nos. 33 and 49 was recorded in the name of father of Basgit, father of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Raj Bali the father of petitioner No. 3. In respect to the land as comprised in the aforesaid Khatas, the respondent No. 3 and others filed objection under Section 9-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act claiming themselves to be co-tenure holders. It was claimed by the respondents that the land in dispute has been in possession of the common anchors and at one point of time, it was recorded in the name of Hemoo and thereafter it came to the branch of Churaman, who happened to be the predecessor of respondents as well. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the respondents, by setting up a pedigree claimed half share in the land in dispute.
(3.) The claim of the respondents was resisted by the petitioners by filing of objection and it was stated on their behalf that the respondents are not from the branch of Churaman and further it was stated that after the entry in the name of Hemoo, the land was divided amongst all sons of Parsan. It was further stated that there has been a partition in the year 1905 and land was recorded in 1355 Fasli in the name of Raj Bali and Basgit, the petitioner's predecessor and at no point of time, any objection was raised from the side of the respondents. It was also stated that the contention of the respondents that Kaulu was the Karta after Hemoo is incorrect as the name of Kaulu was never recorded. On the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioners refuted the claim of the respondents.;