S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioners claim their right from Ram Lakhan who was son of Mata Bodh. Since 1333 fasli (1925-26 A.D) only the name of Mata Bodh was recorded in the revenue records. That position continued until basic year i.e. year immediately before start of consolidation, through notification under section 4 of U.P C.H. Act. Contesting respondents claimed their rights by asserting that they were descendants of brother of Mata Bodh, hence their names be recorded in the revenue records.
(3.) Courts below recorded a finding that Mata Bodh and his brother were residing jointly hence both of them were joint tenants. Thereafter courts below held that respondents were also co sharers hence their names shall also be recorded in the revenue records. Order passed by C.O dated 24.12.1978 was upheld by the S.O.C as well as D.D.C. The matter was brought before D.D.C Allahabad in the form of a revision No. 326/135/17 Ram Lakhan and others v. Amar Nath and others. Revision was dismissed on 17.7.1980 hence this writ petition.;