Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) These writ petitions arise against the same order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jhansi dated 8.7.1977 and they are therefore being disposed of together.
(2.) Subdal Singh common ancestor of the parties had three sons viz. Vrindawan, Dharamjeet and Jugraj Singh The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the plots, which are in the branch of Jugraj Singh Jugraj Singh had five sons. Jagarnath, Pratap Singh. Murlidhar, Pritam Singh and Dulajoo. Amrit Singh and others petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1663 of 1977 are sons of Pritam Singh. Shivraj Singh and Bhagat Singh petitioners in Writ Petition No. 30962 of 1992 claim to have succeeded Pratap Singh on the basis of a Will. The petitioners as well as the contesting respondents belong to the branch of Jugraj. Although several objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer, these petitions arise out of objections filed by Mehraban and others respondent Nos. 4 to 11 who are sons of Jagannath one of the five sons of Jugraj Singh. It is not in dispute that some of the plots in dispute were ancestral of Jugraj and other plots viz. of Khewat No. 4, and Khewat No. 10 were selfacquired tenancy plots of Jugriaj. The case of Meharban and others is that they are entitled to succeed to the one-fifth share of their father Jagannath. The case was contested by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1663 of 1977 who are sons of Pritam Singh, another son of Jugraj and by Pratap Singh another son of Jugraj. The case of the petitioners was that on 23.6.1926 an agreement was executed by Jagannath predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 11 unilaterally by which he gave up his right in respect of Khewat Nos 4 and 1 and took share in Khewat No. 10 and also gifted his share in Khewat No. 10 to Pritam Singh and others and thus Meharban and others were not entitled to any share in the disputed land. It was also the case of the petitioners that out of 3 sons of Jugraj, Jagannath died in the year 1936, Murli Dhar died in the year 1939 and Dulajoo died some time between 1356 and 1359 fasali. There were surviving only two sons of Jugraj viz. Pratap Singh and Pritam Singh. The Consolidation Officer relied upon the deed of 1926 and dismissed the objections of respondent Nos. 4 to 11 with the finding that by virtue of deed of 1926 executed by Jagannath predecessor of respondent Nos. 4 to 11 Jagannath had already got his share. Aggrieved, Meharban and others filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal and held that the deed of 1926 was invalid but he remanded the case in respect of Kluwat No. 86. Aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation the petitioners preferred separate revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who ha- dismissed the revisions by order dated 8.7.1977.
(3.) I have heard Sri D.P. Singh, Counsel for Amrit Singh and others and Sri Mahendra Pratap Counsel for Shivraj Singh and Bhagat Singh and S/Sri V.K. Singh Counsel for Maherban Singh and others.;