- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Ramanuj Pandey holding brief of Sri W. H. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Kumar Aneesh holding brief of Sri B. D. Mandhyan appearing for contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
(2.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged order the dated 9-9-1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision arising out of proceedings under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act' ). The dispute is with regard to share of the parties. The undisputed pedigree of the parties is as under: "maidayal Jhandu Bechu Budhu Tulli Harjas (adopted by Bechu) Mathura Sukhan (Petitioner) Kripa Tirkha Mangta Narpat Baljeet Mangtu Bidhi Naubat (respo (died (widow ndent) issueless) Smt. Phoolwati) During Chakbandi partal, the share of petitioner was recorded a 1/3rd in the khata in dispute. He filed objection to the effect that his father Harjas was adopted by Bechu and such he was entitled to 1/2 share. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 contested the claim of the petitioner denying the adoption and alleging that Bechu has died issueless as such the share of petitioner was only 1/3rd. Subsequently, by way of amendment, respondent Nos. 2 to 7 pleaded a family settlement dated 11-8-1961 wherein the petitioner admitted his share to be 1/3rd. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 9-12-1977 discarded the family settlement as forged and fabricated and held the share of the petitioner to be 1/2. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation also confirmed the findings of the Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. However, the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned judgment dated 9-9-1980 allowed the revision. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.
(3.) THOUGH the contesting respondents denied the fact of adoption of Hajras by Bechu but they failed to disprove the same. The petitioner filed Khatauni of 1325 Fasli which contained an entry of the name of Hajras as adopted son of Bechu. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 failed to produce any document in support of their case. Relying upon the entry in Khatauni of 1325 fasli the Consolidation Officer held that Harjas was adopted by Bechu, the same finding has been confirmed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Deputy Director of Consolidation. Thus all the three Courts have held that Harjas was adopted son of Bechu. Thus normally Harjas and after him his son Sukhan the petitioner would have been entitled to 1/2 share in the property in dispute. However, the contesting respondents relied upon a family settlement dated 11-8-1961 in which the petitioner admitted his share to be 1/3rd. The alleged family settlement contained of the signature of the petitioner which was denied by him. The case of the petitioner was that he is an illiterate person and cannot make signature and affixes thumb-impression and his alleged signature on the family settlement is forged. The Consolidation Officer allowed a number of opportunity to the respondents to produce evidence to establish that the petitioner can make signature. However, they failed to discharge the said burden. The Consolidation Officer found that all the documents filed in the proceedings before him by the petitioner bears his thumb-impression. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, he held the document of family settlement to be forged and fabricated.;