Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri A.K. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Pathak for the contesting respondents.
(2.) The dispute relates to khata no. 35 situate in village Karaunda Nankar, Tehsil Naugarh District Basti which was recorded in the name of respondent no. 1 in the basic year. An objection under Section 9- A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act ) was filed by the petitioners claiming rights on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 15.6.1968 alleged to have been executed in their favour by respondent no.1. The claim was contested by respondent no.1 who did not deny the execution of sale deed but it was stated that his thumb impression was fraudulently obtained by misrepresenting that his marriage would be solemnized with one Meena Kumari.
(3.) The fact as set up in the writ petition and which has not been denied in the counter affidavit are that after execution of the sale deed the petitioners' claim for mutation was allowed by the Additional commissioner which was confirmed in appeal as well as in the revision. Thereafter, contesting respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed which was dismissed as abated on account of consolidation operation.;