Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to khata No. 110 comprising of plot No. 345 area 4-19-0 recorded solely in the name of one Bhullan. Following is the undisputed pedigree of the parties:
(2.) The petitioners are the purchaser of the khata in dispute from Smt. Lalkaur widow of Bhullan by means of sale deed dated 3.6.1980. Before the onset of the consolidation operation in the village respondent No. 4 Rupram filed a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act being suit No. 174 of 1971-72 for a declaration that khata in dispute was a joint property of all the four sons of Mangala. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 18.11.1971. On the basis of the ex-parte decree the name of all four sons of Mangala came to be mutated in revenue record. After death of Bhullan his daughter filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree which was allowed vide order dated 31.3.1974 which was challenged by respondent No. 4 Rupram in revision. The Additional Commissioner made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue for dismissal of the revision. However, in the meantime the village was notified for consolidation as a result, the reference proceedings pending before the Board of Revenue along with suit was abated under section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'). The basic year entry standing in the name of Smt. Lalkaur and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 was challenged by the petitioners by filing objection under section 9-A(2) of the Act inter-alia on the ground that Smt. Lalkaur was the sole tenure-holder of the land in dispute and had transferred the same, to the petitioner by means of a sale deed and hence their name are liable to be mutated over the khata in dispute. The objection was contested by the contesting respondents on the ground that property was joint family property and name of Bhullan was recorded as a representative capacity and all the four sons of Mangala had equal shares therein.
(3.) All the three consolidation Courts have held that land in dispute was acquired during the life time of Managala when the family was in the state of joint-ness and it was joint family property. Since Bhullan was the eldest his name was recorded in the representative capacity and all the four sons of Managala were co-tenants and have equal share and thus the petitioners are only entitled to l/4th share of Smt. Lalkaur on the basis of the sale deed executed by her.;