- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28-7-75 passed by the D. D. C. , respondent No. 1 and the order dated 15-5-75 passed by -. the Settlement Off- icer, Consolidation, respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE disputed property is plot no. 206, area 7 decimal. THE undis puted position is that Sita Ram, the father of the parties, was Zamindar of this property. Allegedly, in the year 1354 Fasli, he made a settlement in favour of his eldest son, the petitioner, whereas, respondents No. 3 and 4, the other two sons were minors. Another feature of the case is that the land was recorded partly in the years 1356 Fasli and 1359 Fasli. THE worthy father was quite conscious of the fact that the property will go outside the family the moment the Z. A. notification was issued as it was very much in the air that Z. A. Legislation was going to be passed shortly. He did not go long in search of a proper tenant and readily found his worthy son, the petitioner as a good character in whose favour a settlement could be made in order to ward off the evil effects of Z. A. Legislation. It is in this context that the case has to be viewed. Another picture of the case is that Sita Ram, the father of the parties died sometimes in the year 1970-71 near about the notification under Section 4 of the CH Act. THE family was shown joint for pretty long time. Even on Feb. 2, 1966, parties jointly purchased properties. In the Kutumb Register, they were shown jointly recorded. In this broad feature of this family history, a settlement is alleged to have been made in favour of the petitioner by his real father. Both the courts below have replied his contention that the disputed property belongs exclusively to him. Reliance has been placed on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1076. It is very clear from that ruling that when the nucleus is proved of joint status and joint interest, the burden is upon the person who says that he exclusively earned the property. There is no an iota of evidence on the record to prove as to what was the financial status of the petitioner or if at all he had any financial status in presence of his father specially when the other two brothers are minors. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that with such a nucleus, with joint family the father would have excluded his other two sons and made a settlement in favour of the petitioner only. The principal intention appears to be to grab the property somehow or the other, which might have gone outside the family. Therefore a colour had to be given of settlement in favour of the petitioner who alone was major at that time.
(3.) BOTH the courts have applied their minds on the evidence and circumstances available on the record. I do not find any misdirection on their part giving any scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri S. N. Singh has vehe mently argued that the petitioner's contention regarding limitation has not been considered. I think it was not at all essential specially when the Consolidation Officer himself had decided the case not only on the point of limitation but on merits also. It seems that the point of limi tation had not been very seriously pressed there, which is now being agitated in this Court.;