- (1.) I have heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.
(2.) THIS writ petition arises out of an objection under section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
(3.) THE dispute in the writ petition pertains the land of khata no. 13, which in the basic year record was recorded in the name of Satya Prakash, respondent no. 4. Two objections under section 9A (2) of the Act were filed. The first objection was filed by petitioner no. 1, alleging that no sale -deed had been executed by him in favour of Satya Prakash, respondent no. The registered sale -deed dated 29.7.1968 was a void document as it was executed without consideration; the objector had been called upon to sign as a witness on a sale -deed executed by one Narain Dutt in favour Satya Prakash and in the garb of the same, the sale -deed was got executed and that he was not aware of the character of the document executed by him. The second objection was filed by the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Deo Narain, and Shyam Narain, alleging that the land in dispute had been acquired by their father in the name of Raj Narain when he was a minor and the same was a joint -family property. There was a partition between the parties and the name of Raj Narain was recorded in the representative capacity; taking advantage of his name being recorded, a sale -deed was obtain by Satya Prakash without Raj Narain being aware or conscious of the fact that, in fact, it was a sale -deed, that was being got executed by him.;