Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) In the baa year the plots in dispute were recorded in the name of Natthan son of Sumera. Th petitioners are the heirs of Natthan. Objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by respondent No. 4 Om Prakash. He claime co-tenancy rights. His case was that Sumera had executed a deed on 4.9.1953 b which half share was given to his(Om Prakash's) father Bhado and half share Natthan. Before the Consolidation Office both the parties adduced oral as well documentary evidence. A judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the Trial Court decree in a civil suit for injunction filed b Natthan against Om Prakash, was also filed. The Civil Court in that suit relied upon the deed of 1953 as well as upon compromise said to have been made b Natthan before the Ravi Das Sudhar Sami in which Om Prakash respondent No. was acknowledged the owner of half share According to the respondent the judgment in the civil suit operates as res judicata. Th Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of Om Prakash. An appeal was preferred by Om Prakash which was allows by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the order of the Settlement Office Consolidation has been upheld by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The orders of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and of the Deputy Director of Consol elation have been assailed by the petitioners. The Courts below (the Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer, Consolidation) have relied upon the deed of 1953 and the compromise before the Ravi Das Sudhar Samiti and the judgment of the Civil Court.
(2.) I have heard Sri S.A. Shah Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Misra Counsel for respondent No. 4.
(3.) It was submitted by Sri S.A. Shah that neither the Settlement Officer Consolidation nor the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded any finding that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court operates as res judicata and what has been held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the judgment of the Civil Court is relevant and an important piece of evidence. In absence of a finding of res judicata it is submitted by Sri Shah, the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the judgment of the Civil Court. It is submitted that the deed of 1953 said to have been executed by Sumera was a forged one and had seen the light of the day when it was produced after 27 years and that the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have also misread the said deed as being a deed of cooption when it was not a deed of co-option. The copy of the deed dated 4.9.1953 has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Sri Shah submits that by this deed Sumera has divided the property between Natthan and Bhado and has left nothing for himself and that the Settlement Officer misread the document in holding that Sumera had taken a co-tenant along with himself. It is submitted that on its terms the document is a gift deed and being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence. As regards the compromise said to have been made by Natthan before the Ravi Das Sudhar Samiti it is submitted that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had recorded a finding that there are no signatures of Natthan in the compromise and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not reversed the said finding but nevertheless has relied upon it which is an erroneous approach. On the other hand Counsel for respondents submitted that the findings recorded by the Civil Court operate as res judiciata.;