- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. The dispute in the instant petition which has been preferred assailing the judgment and order dated 12- 5-1975 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur in Revision No. 3537, revolves round land comprising in plot No. 420 admeasuring 1. 19 acres situated in village Poore Jaddu Pargana Miranpur, District Sultanpur.
(2.) A bare perusal of the record would reveal that in the basic year entry, the petitioner was recorded as Bhumidhar. On publication of record, an objection came to be filed by contesting Opp. Parties claiming their rights as Bhumidhars on the premises that the property in question being their ancestral property devolved upon them as successors. On the other hand, the petitioner repudiated their claims and claimed that his name was rightly entered in the basic year and the entry should not be interfered with. The Consolidation Officer who initially dealt with the matter, rejected the objection and allowed the name of the petitioner to continue on record in the basic year entry. This led the Opp. Parties to prefer appeal in which Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation came with the verdict that the names of Opp. Parties be recorded as Sirdar while directing to expunge the name of the petitioner from the basic year entry. In revision, the revisional Court allowed the revision and modulated the order to the extent that petitioner's name be recorded as Asami while the names of Opp. parties be recorded as Sirdar. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition came to be filed in the year 1975. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no appearance for the contesting Opp. Parties. Before delving into the merit of the case, it would be useful to have glance through the pedigree, which can be gleaned from paragraph 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit of contesting Opp. Parties.
(3.) A perusal of the record particularly para 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit leaves no manner of doubt that the property in question was acquired by Ratipal, Mahabir and Bhagwandin through registered will dated 25-6-1903. It would further transpire that Bhagwandin and Mahabir breathed their last during the life-time of Ratipal and Ram Samujh (son of Mahabir) and as a consequence Ratipal and Ram Samujh came to be recorded as co-tenure-holder in the year 1356 Fasli. From a perusal of Annexure S. C. A. 1 to the Suppl. counter affidavit, it would appear that petitioner happens to be the son of daughter of Ratipal. It has not been disputed in paragraph 4 of the Suppl. counter affidavit that Ram Samujh died during the life-time of Ratipal. It has not been repudiated that Bhagwati is the son of daughter of Ratipal which fact is borne out not only from Annexure SCA 7 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by contesting Opp. Parties but also from paragraph 11 of the written statement filed in the suit. Annexure SCA 8 containing statement of Bhagwati reinforces the fact that Bhagwati is the son of daughter of Ratipal. In the above conspectus, there are no indicia on the record to repudiate the fact that on the date of vesting, Ratipal and Ram Samujh were recorded as co-tenure holders. Besides, from the pedigree the authenticity of which has not been disputed, it is borne out that petitioner is the son of daughter of Ratipal and by this reckoning, being the son of daughter of Ratipal, he had rightly inherited the land of Ratipal. On the other hand, it is on record to indicate that Opp. Parties are the sons of Ram Samujh and by this reckoning, they would be deemed to have inherited the rights in the disputed land by virtue of being sons of Ram Samujh. In connection with this Section 171 (h) of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act may also be referred to in order to ascertain the order of succession. From a punctilious reading of this section, it would appear that daughter's son would be preferred to brother's son's son. It would thus be eloquent that Bhagwati who is son of daughter of Ratipal would have precedence over Opp. parties and he would be deemed to have inherited the property on the date of death of Ratipal in preference to contesting Opp. Parties who are sons of father's son's son namely, Mahabir from whose loins was born Ram Samujh who also died during life-time of Ratipal. It brooks no dispute that petitioner is in possession over the land in dispute but in view of what has been held above that the contesting Opp. Parties would be deemed to have inherited the rights in the disputed land by virtue of being sons of Ram Samujh, and by reason of their being co-tenants alongwith the petitioner, they would also be deemed to be in possession and therefore, both the parties would be entitled to be recorded as co-sirdars over the property in dispute to the extent of one-half share each.;