R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) One Ganpat Rai had two sons Achraj and Kanchan Kanchan had two sons Maiger and Jai Karan Jai Karan predeceased Maiger and died in 1942. He had a son Dudhnath and a daughter Smt. Saguna Dudhnath predeceased Jaikaran. His widow Smt. Dulara in whose favour Jai Karan had gifted his one fourth share in 1936 also died in life time of Smt. Shyamarathi, Saguna had a son Uma Shanker whose sons are petitioners. Maiger had a son Dev who died in his life time leaving behind a widow Smt. Shyamarathi who executed sale deed of entire half share of Khata no. 62, which admittedly was ancestral, in favour of opposite parties no. 1 to 8. There is no dispute in respect of other half share which devolved on Acharaj's branch.
(2.) All the three consolidation authorities accepted opposite party's claim and held that Smt. Shyamrathi was entitled to transfer entire half share, that is one fourth which he inherited from Maiger and the other one fourth of Jai Karan which devolved on her after death of Smt. Dulara the last heir in his branch. Further the Deputy Director found that Dulara's share could not devolve on Uma Shanker who claimed to be daughter's son or his sons. Doubt was expressed by revising authority if Jai Karan at all had any daughter.
(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that the orders passed by consolidation authorities suffer from manifest error of law it is urged that in 1942 a mutation application was filed by Uma Shanker on death of Jai Karan in which Mst. Shyamarathi was a party. It was compromised on 4-2-42 and 1,4 share of Uma Shanker was accepted by her. According to the learned counsel in pursuance of this compromise, name of Mst. Shyamarathi was entered and as this was in knowledge of opposite parties they were estopped from challenging the entries in consolidation proceedings. Learned counsel further urged that a decree was passed in suit under section 49 between same parties in respect of same subject of dispute therefore it operated as res judicata. Learned counsel urged that even though this plea does not appear to have been specifically raised but it being a question of jurisdiction can be raised in writ petition for the first time. Learned counsel further urged that in Hindu Law daughter's son is preferential heir. None of the contentions advanced on behalf of petitioners have any merit. So far compromise fEed in mutation ease is concerned the order was not filed before Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer Consolidation. It was filed for the first time before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He found it as fact that the copy filed before him was a forged copy. This finding has not been challenged in writ petition. Apart from it from the perusal of the application which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition it appears the finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation is well founded. It purports to be an application in mutation case filed by one Uma Shanker against Jai Karan. This was obviously incorrect as mutation was sought because of the death of Jai Karan and in case he was alive this application could not be maintainable. Compromise in mutation has been signed by Maiger and Mst. Syamarathi both. If Maiger was alive and he signed the compromise there was no question of Syamarathi signing it as she could have no interest in it. Learned counsel for opposite party therefore lightly pointed out that the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not commit any error in not placing any reliance on the copy of the compromise entered in mutation proceedings.;