- (1.) Heard Sri Bimal Prasad, for the petitioner and Sri Satendra Nath Tiwari, for the contesting respondents.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of Assistant Collector dated 04.11.2009, approving kurra and final decree dated 06.11.2009, Additional Commissioner dated 27.04.2010 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 20.06.2012, dismissing the appeal and second appeal of the petitioner, in partition suit, under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition And Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(3.) Sukh Lal Singh (the petitioner) filed a suit (registered as Suit No. 195 of 2009) under Section 176 of the Act, for division of his share in land recorded in khata -361 [consisting plots 101 (area 0.288 hectare), 103 (area 0.207 hectare), 105 (area 0.807 hectare), 108 (area 0.046 hectare), 113 -kha (area 0.069 hectare), 147 -Aa (area 0.680 hectare), 147 -Ba (area 0.304 hectare), 148 (area 0.011 hectare), 150 -m (area 0.230 hectare), 197/2 (area 0.051 hectare), 218/2 (area 0.092 hectare), 267 (area 0.115 hectare) and 268/2 (area 0.149 hectare) (total 13 plots, area 3.049 hectare)] of village Usrah Rashoolpur, pargana Tappal, district Aligarh. Assistant Collector, by his judgment dated 09.06.2014 passed the preliminary decree in the suit holding (i) defendants -1 and 2 were sole owners of plots 218/2 (area 0.092 hectare), 267 (area 0.115 hectare) and 268/2 (area 0.149 hectare) (ii) The plaintiff had 416/495 share and defendants -1 and 2 jointly had 79/495 share in plots 101 (area 0.288 hectare), 103 (area 0.207 hectare) (iii) The plaintiff had 262/984 share and defendants -1 and 2 jointly had 722/984 share in plot 147 (area 0.984 hectare) and (iv) The plaintiff had 1/2 share and defendants -1 and 2 jointly had 1/2 share in plots 105 (area 0.807 hectare), 108 (area 0.046 hectare), 113 -kha (area 0.069 hectare), 148 (area 0.011 hectare), 150 -m (area 0.230 hectare) and 197/2 (area 0.051 hectare). Although the plaintiff was co -sharer of 1/2 share and defendants -1 and 2 jointly had 1/2 share in joint holdings, but variation of share was due to sale deeds executed by them in favour of each other in respect of different plots. No one challenged preliminary decree and it has become final.;