Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Radhey Shyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) Though the case has been taken up in the revised list but no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 4 nor any counter-affidavit has been filed.
(3.) The dispute relates to Khata No. 710 which was recorded in the name of respondent No. 4 in the basic year. The petitioner was recorded in possession and during chnkbandi partal was also found to be in actual possession. An objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was filed by him for expunging the entry of respondent No. 4 on the ground that his predecessor in interest and after them he has been in continuous possession since 1938 and since he was in possession on all relevant dates i.e. preceding date of vesting, on the date of vesting and thereafter, as such he has acquired bhumidhari rights. In alternative it was pleaded that he became sirdar on the basis of entries in 1356 and 1359 fasli. Respondent No. 4 contested the case of the petitioner on the ground that he came to be recorded on the basis of the sale deed executed by Shyam Charan who was recorded Zamindar in tenant-in-chief column in 1363 fasli and since then he was in continuous possession. The petitioner in support of his case filed certified copies of khasra and khatauni extracts from 1345 fasli to 1376 fasli and also produced oral evidence to establish his continuous and uninterrupted possession.;