- (1.) The petitioners contend that the respondent No. 4 had claimed succession by virtue of being the daughter of late Sri Harkesh through his second wife Smt. Husani but she was not entitled for an exclusive succession to the holding of late Harkesh. The petitioners are the three married daughters of late Harkesh through his first wife namely Smt. Khajani. To demonstrate the relationship of the parties the pedigree is extracted hereinunder: Harkesh died on 12th of September, 1998. An application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by Smt. Husani (mother of the respondent No. 4), which was dismissed in default on 26.2.2001. The respondent No. 4 filed a restoration application, which was allowed on 21.2.2006 and the matter was restored. The petitioners had filed objection to the said claim of the respondent No. 4. The claim was allowed on 13.6.2006 against which a restoration and an appeal was also filed by the petitioners. The appeal was rejected on 2.12.2006 and the revision has also been dismissed on 11.8.2011. Hence this petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri Aslam Ansari learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel submit that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit and the matter be disposed of finally as the entire material is already on record. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage.;