- (1.) THE dispute in this petition is about the title to the holding of several plots of Khata No.46, Village Daudpur, Gangapur, District - Varanasi. THE original petitioner - Bechan (since deceased and now substituted by his heirs) was the recorded tenure holder over the holding in question.
(2.) THE father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Ram Khelawan filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights over the said Khata on the ground that the parties belong to the same family tree and since their ancestors were common, therefore, the objector - Ram Khelawan has 1/3 share in the holding in question. THE litigation has a chequered History; details whereof will be narrated herein after but in short, the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection on 23.4.1984 filed by Ram Khelawan, father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed on 5.2.1988. A revision came to be filed by the contesting respondent - Ram bali which was allowed on 29.6.1990 reversing the orders of the authorities below which has given rise to the present petition questioning the correctness of the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Ram Khelawan, the original objector and father of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, set up the following pedigree contending that his father Jageshwar and grant father of the original petitioner (Bechan), Rameshwar and one Magan were three real brothers, sons of Jattan. The pedigree as set up initially by the respondents is quoted herein below:- Lautoo ! ! ! ! Jaggo Raghubir Jattan ! ! ! ! Rameshwar Jageshwar Magan ! ! ! Nirajan Ram Khelawan Kalika ! ! Bechan Lakhan ! ! ! Kalloo Malloo The parties proceeded to lead evidence but Ram Khelawan, who was about 70 years of age and was the objector, did not get himself examined nor did he get his statement recorded. On his behalf his son, the respondent No2. - Ram bali was produced as a witness and his statement was recorded on 29.3.1979. Another witness Kauleshwar was set up by them whose statement was recorded on 17.9.1979. The evidence of the parties was closed on 7.11.1979. The petitioner - Bechan objected to the aforesaid pedigree set up by the respondents. The pedigree set up by the petitioner in relation to his family tree is as follows:- Lautoo ! Jattan ! ! ! ! Rameshwar Jaggo Raghubir ! Niranjan ! Bechan
(3.) THUS, it was clearly stated that the pedigree set up by the respondents has got nothing to do with the genealogical table of the petitioner and they were two entirely different families. To further substantiate the claim, the petitioner also disclosed the correct pedigree/family tree of the respondent - objector as follows:- Har Dayal ! Jeo Lal ! ! ! Jageshwar Magan ! ! Ram Khelawan Kalika ! ! ! Ram Bali Bhagirath Lakhan ! ! ! Kalloo Malloo It appears that the contesting respondent having realized some error in the pedigree set up by them, filed an amendment application on 16.11.1979 which was allowed. The objector - Ram Khelawan through this amendment set up the following pedigree:- Lautoo ! Jattan ! __________________________________________________ ! ! ! ! ! Raghuveer Jaggo Rameshwar Jageshwar Magan x x ! ! ! Niranjan Khelawan Kalika ! ! Lakhan ! ______________ ! ! Kalloo Malloo The petitioner reiterated his stand and contended that the objector has been taking different stands on the pedigree and, therefore, the same as set up by Ram Khelawan should be rejected. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30.11.1979 rejected the objections filed by Ram Khelawan and upheld the entry in favour of the petitioner as was contained in the basic year. Ram Khelawan filed a restoration for a re-hearing in the matter, which was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 19.12.1979. Aggrieved by both these orders, two appeals were filed by Ram Khelawan that were allowed on 5.4.1980 and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. Aggrieved Bechan filed a revision, which was allowed on 26.6.1980 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal to decide the matter. The appeals were again dismissed on 21.10.1980 thereby maintaining the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.11.1979.;