S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) These are two connected writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 1998 of 1974 filed by Ram Narain and Writ Petition No. 1916 of 1974 filed by Jai Narain, which are to be referred as first writ petition and second writ petition respectively. Sri H.S.N. Tripathi, learned Advocate appeared in support of the first writ petition and Sri S.N. Singh, learned Advocate in opposition thereof and to the reverse aforesaid learned Counsel appeared for their respective parties. As the facts of both writ petitions are one and the same, by giving brief facts, both writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by one common judgment.
(2.) Dispute relates to land comprised in khata No. 75 and 151 situated in village Sadkanda, Tappa Vallia, Pargana Salempur, District Deoria. Land of Khata No. 75 was bhumidhari which consisted of 16 plots (2.87 acres) and the land of Khata No. 151 was sirdari which consisted of seven lots (2.2 acres). Land of both khatas was recorded in the name of petitioners' ancestral namely Sarju. Objection was filed by the contesting respondents, who are respondent second set here, claiming co-tenancy rights in the land of bhumidhari khata. The main ground was that the entry in the name of Sarju happened to be as of Karta of the family. The claim was that both sides being of the same family in view of the name of Sarju being in representative capacity both sides are to get half and half share in the land in dispute. The claim/objection was resisted by the petitioner of the first writ petition on the ground that Sarju was never Karta of the family and in fact land of both khatas is the sole/acquisition of Sarju and, therefore, the claim of other side of their co-tenancy rights is incorrect. It was further stated on behalf of the petitioner that there was partition long ago between the family and the land in the name of both sides came to be recorded in their respective khevat (khata) and otherwise also there has been separate dealings from both sides in respect to the property owned by them and, therefore, claim that entry in the name of Sarju as 'Karta is totally wrong. Claim of petitioners of the first writ petition was that their side continued in exclusive possession and entry in their name continued, to which no objection was raised by the other side and therefore now on the start of the consolidation proceedings claim of co-tenancy rights is clearly unjust.
(3.) So far the petitioner of second writ petition is concerned it was claimed that both parties are co-tenant and entry of other branch was in representative capacity. It was further claimed that there was a family settlement dated 17.12.1944 by which his claim is to be accepted.;