Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Km. Merun Dey holding brief of Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) The dispute relates to plot no. 606 which recorded in the basic year as "bhumidhari' of the petitioners. The pedigree of the litigating parties as set out in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer is as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) During consolidation operation an objection was filed by Harihar Nath the predecessor of respondent nos. 1 to 7 alleging that the share of the petitioners in the plot in dispute was purchased in an auction sale dated 23.5.1945 held in pursuance to execution of the decree passed in civil suit no. 207 of 1944. Respondent No. 8 Vishwa Nath also joined in the said objection stating that he had purchased the share of Kashi from his son Kaloo by means of sale deed dated 17.11.1939 as such the name of the petitioners is liable to be expunged and their names should be recorded. Another objection was filed by respondent no. 9 Smt. Champa Devi claiming rights over an area 1-0-0 on the ground that she had purchased the said area of the plot in dispute from one Puroshottam and as such, her name may be recorded in the revenue records. The case was contested by the petitioners alleging that plot in dispute belonged to their ancestor Har Dayal. After his death the land in dispute devolved upon his only son Lachhiman and after his death it devolved upon his two sons namely, Bechai and Behari. Kashi died issueless and his share devolved upon Ram Padarath as brother of the deceased. After death of Ram Padarath the property came to the petitioners. It was also pleaded that after death of Bechai his share devolved upon his daughter Mst. Ramdei who transferred the same to the petitioners by means of sale deed dated 18.7.1960 and in this manner the petitioners became "bhumidhar' of the entire plot in dispute.;