Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard.
(2.) On 3.12.1974 it is said that based on a compromise between the parties ⅓rd share in the holding of Khunkhun was recorded in the name of the petitioner, while ⅔rd was recorded in the name of Mangroo S/o Khunkhun. In 2008 the petitioner herein filed an appeal under section 11(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 challenging the said entry on the ground that no such compromise was entered; it was fraudulent; being the son of Khunkhun he was entitled to 1/2 share in his holdings, but fraudulently he was recorded only with regard to ⅓rd share. In the said appeal objections were filed by Mangroo alleging that the petitioner was not the son of Khunkhun, but was the son of Muneshar, though it was also stated that wife of Khunkhun after his death started living with Muneshar, his brother and out of their relationship Ram Samujh, the petitioner was born, therefore, based on a compromise ⅓rd share of the holding was granted, though as per the normal line of succession to the holding of Khunkhun, he was not entitled.
(3.) In the said objections a reference was also made to proceedings of a civil suit which was filed by the petitioner-Ram Samujh in 2002, six years prior to filing of this appeal i.e. in 2008, seeking permanent injunction against the private respondent herein, asserting that he was the son of Muneshar. Various other facts and documents were referred to allege that Ram Samujh was son of Muneshar. It was only after this objection was filed that firstly an application for amendment of plaint was filed by Ram Samujh in the suit for permanent injunction which was allowed against which the revision of the respondents herein has been dismissed. Secondly, an application for amendment was filed in the appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.) on 23.6.2014 arising out of consolidation proceedings.;