Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioners are the transferees of one Smt. Sukesara. Sarju the husband of Smt. Sukesara and Sudama the contesting respondent No. 2 are descendants of a common ancestor Kanhai Rai. The respondent Sudama is a descendant in the branch of Inder Rai, one of the sons of Kanhai Rai from his second wife while Sarju husband of Smt. Sukesara was a descendant in the branch of Jaij Rai, another son of Kanhai Rai also from his second wife. In the basic year the petitioners were recorded over the disputed Khatas. Objections under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the respondent Sudama and Smt. Ram Singari the descendants of Indra Rai's branch. Their case was that the plots in dispute are ancestral property of Kanhai Rai and they are entitled to a share. They challenged the transfers made by Sukesara. The objections were contested by the petitioners. The petitioners' case is that in the year 1890, there was a partition in the family and the share of Jaij Rai was separated; that Jaij Rai died in the year 1916 and he was succeeded to by his son Sarju who died in the year 1918 survived by his widow Smt. Sukesara the predecessor in interest of the petitioners; that plots in dispute were sir land and were sold and Smt. Sukesara became the ex-proprietary tenant of the plots and was so recorded in the Khatauni of 1356 F; that under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act she became a sirdar and later on acquired Bhu-midhri rights and thereafter transferred the plots in dispute to the petitioners.
(2.) The Consolidation Officer dismissed the objections of the respondent Sudama and Smt. Ram Singari and others. The appeal was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. However, the revision filed by Sudama and Ram Singari was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 1.7.1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that the partition of 1890 was incomplete and was not acted upon matter missing to belong to the joint Hindu family and that on the death of Jaij Rai and his son Sarju, Smt. Sukesara had only a right to maintenance under the Hindu personal law which applied to Sir land and that subsequently under the Hindu Widows Right to Property Act, 1937 she acquired only limited right and consequently she had no right to transfer the property by sale or by gift so as to affect the share of the other branches.
(3.) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai assisted by Sri Pradeep Rai Counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.S.N. Tripathi Counsel for the respondents.;