R.B.Misra, J. - (1.) THIS is a peti tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution arising out of a consolidation matter.
(2.) THE dispute between the pat ties relates to a large number of Khatas spread over in a number of villages, namely, Khata No. 10 of village Maha-raura. Khatas Nos. 7 and 8 of village Deori. Khata No. 42 of village Nibi Gaharwar, Khata No. 6 of village Ram-patti Kalan, Khata No. 7 of village Ram-patti Khurd. Khata No. 31 of village Rani Chak. Khatas Nos. 5 and 18 of village CMiilpi and Khata No. 11 of village Ram chak. The plots in dispute are either the Sir, the Khudkasht or the fixed-rate tenancy plots, comprising a very sub stantial area in hundreds of acres. The property in dispute at one time belonged to Ram Padarath and his brother Dhadh. Ram Padarath died leav ing behind Smt. Batasi Kunwar as his widow and Smt. Patirai Kunwar as his daughter; while Dhadh died leaving behind his widow Smt. Parmeshwara. Padarath's daughter Smt. Patira.i Kunwar was married to Sankatha Singh. As the property in dispute is a substantial one, there seems to have been a scramble for the same among the various competitive claimants, and a number of litigations having great bearing on the present case were fought out between the parties at various stages.
(3.) TO start with. there was a mutation proceeding in the year 1929 on the death of Smt. Parmeshwara. widow of Dhadh. Smt. Patirai Kunwar wanted her name to be mutated, while Ohandrika Singh and others (respondents Nos. 4 to 34) wanted their own names to be mutat ed as distant collaterals of Ram Padarath, the father of Smt. Patirai Kunwar. That proceeding culminated into a compromise between Smt. Patirai Kunwar and res pondents Nos. 4 to 34. Then there was a civil suit (No. 3 of 1940) between Smt. Patirai Kunwar and respondents Nos. 4 to 34. In that suit certain arbitrators were appointed by the parties who gave their award. On the basis of the award given by the Arbitrators a compromise application was filed by the parties, and the suit was decided by the Munsif in 'terms of that compromise. Under the compromise Smt. Patirai Kunwar was given half share in the property wibh a life interest. The third litigation was a redemption suit (No. 21 of 1949) under Section 12 of the Agriculturists Relief Act filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 34 or their predecessors against respondents Nos. 35 to 54 impleading Smt. Patiraj Kunwar also as a defendant. Respondents Nos. 4 to 34 had in that suit claim ed to be the heirs and legal representa tives of the original mortgagor along with Smt. Patiraj Kunwar and on that basis they had sought the redemption of the mortgage. That suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge on 28th December. 1951 on the finding that the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 4 to 34) had failed to prove that they were the heirs of the original mortgagor or that they were entitled to sue for redemption. Res pondents Nos. 4 to 34 preferred an appeal against the iudgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, but during the pendency of the appeal before the Addi tional District Judge they filed an ap plication for permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The Additional District Judge allowed that application with the following order on 17-8-1962:- "I allow the appeal to be withdrawn with permission to file another suit sub ject to the appellant paying half the costs of the appeal within 3 months. The counsel for the respondent is agreeable to this order". The next litigation between the parties was Suit No. 440 of 1950 filed by Smt. Patirai Kunwar against respondents Nos. 4 to 34 for recovery of profits to the ex tent of her half share on the allegation that respondents Nos. 4 to 34 had been in possession of her share. The last liti gation in the series was asain a mutation case started in the year 1966 on the death of Smt. Patirai Kunwar. In that pro ceeding Raibali Singh, the petitioner sought mutation in place of Smt. Patirai Kunwar as her son. while respondents Nos. 4 to 34 claimed mutation as the re-versioners of Smt. Patirai Kunwar's father. The Tahsildar. How ever, refused tc mutate the name of the petitioner on the ground that he was not the son of Patiraj Kunwar.;