Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the share of the parties in khata Nos. 69, 73 and 185. In the basic year the said khatas were jointly recorded in the name of the petitioner and contesting respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The pedigree of the litigating parties is as under : Adhar / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / / / Bechan Jokhan Mata Badal / / (x) Bishwanath .............................. Died issueless / / / Nikhidi Baba Sheo Phal (Petitioner) / (x) ........................ Died issueless / / Khailash Hazari 2. The pedigree is undisputed and also there is no dispute about the fact that all the three branches of Adhar had 1/3rd share each, according to the pedigree. The dispute is confined to 1/3rd share of Mata Badal who died issueless. During consolidation proceedings an objection Section 9 -A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 claiming 2/3rd share in khatas in dispute on the ground that there was partition between Bechan and other two brothers Jokhan and Mata Badal and 1/3rd share of Bechan was partitioned and Jokhan and Mata Badal remained in the state of jointness. After death of Mata Badal his 1/3rd share was exclusively inherited by the branch of Jokhan and as such they entitled to 2/3rd share in the khatas in dispute. The petitioner contested the claim of respondents on the ground that there was partition in the three branches and their shares were separated. After death of Mata Badal his share was inherited by branch of Bechan and Jokhan jointly. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment dated 18.11.1976 rejected the claim of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and held that petitioner and respondents both are entitled to inherit the share of Mata Badal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and held that petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd share and respondents are entitled to 2/3rd share. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20.3.1984.
(3.) IN support of their case, the respondents relied upon certain khatauni entries of 'bakasht' over 2/3rd area of khata in dispute in the name of Baba, the grandfather of respondent Nos. 3 & 4. They also placed reliance on 'dakhalnama' in the partition suit which according to them, went to show that 1/3rd share of Bechan was separated and he was given possession of the same. The Consolidation Officer recorded a finding that there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any settlement in the suit for partition on the basis of which 1/3rd share of Bechan was separated and the other two branches remained joint. However, the Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed 2/3rd share to respondent Nos. 3 & 4 only on the basis of entry of 'bakasht' over 2/3rd area of the khatas in dispute in the name of Baba.;