Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) IN the basic year the petitioner was recorded as the Bhuniidhar of the four plots in dispute. During consolidation operations Dhruva Narain (respondent) filed an objection claiming a one-third share in plot No. 151 and one-sixteenth share over the remaining-three plots, namely, plots Nos. 96, 164 and 181. He claimed that the three plots Nos. 96, 164 and 181, originally belonged to his grandfather, Chandra Shekhar, after whose death they were inherited by his father, Sukhdeo Prasad, along with his brothers. Plot No. 151 was acquired by his father, Sukhdeo Prasad, alone. Sukhdeo Prasad died, leaving a widow and two sons, namely, the objector Dhruva Narain and Beer Bhadra.
(2.) THE objector's father, Sukhdeo Prasad, executed a gift deed on March 30, 1938, by which he gave his landed property to his wife, Smt. Bittan Kuar, and his then existing son, Beer Bhadra on the condition that in case a son was born to him subsequently, he will have an equal share in the gifted property. Subsequently in 1955 and 1956 Bittan Kuar as well as Beer Bhadra transferred their interest in the plots in dispute in favour of Smt. Chandra Kumari, the present petitioner by registered deeds of sale. The other co-sharers (who were the descendants of the objector's grandfather, Chandra Shekhar) also transferred their interest in these plots to Smt. Chandra Kumari. As a result of these transfers Smt. Chandra Kumari alone came to be recorded as the Bhumidhar over the plots in dispute. The respondent was a minor when these sale deeds were executed, and so these transfers were not binding on him. The objection was contested by the present petitioner. She claimed that she had no knowledge of the gift deed. She had purchased all the existing interests in the plots in dispute. She was the exclusive Bhumidhar. In the alternative, it was pleaded that she was in possession on her own behalf for more than six years, and so she had, in any event, become Sirdar. The Consolidation Officer by a vaguely reasoned order, upheld the objection in respect of plot No. 151. He directed that the objector's name be recorded over a one-third share of this plot. He dismissed the claim of the objector with regard to the other three plots. He, however, gave a finding that there was no evidence to prove adverse possession.
(3.) BOTH sides appealed. The Settlement Officer dismissed the objection of Dhruva Narain in toto. He held that the land in dispute was Sir or Khudkasht and could validly be gifted. The objector had no interest at the tune of the execution of the gift deed, because he was not in existence then, he could not hence claim any right in the plots in dispute.;