R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) One Kanhaiya Lal died in 1955 leaving two daughters Smt. Savitri and Smt. Javitri. Javitri died in 1958 leaving four sons Girish Chandra, Prakash Chandra, Chandra Sheikhar and Bhaiya Lal. Savitri has filed the instant petition and has impleaded Javitri's sons as Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 in this as well as in the connected writ petition No. 234 of 1963.
(2.) In proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act objections were filed in respect of Bhumidhari and Sirdari plots situate in three separate villages, one of them being Lachrnan Nagla. A dispute arose whether upon the death of Javitri her interest devolved upon Savitri or upon Javitri's sons. Ultimately in three second appeals filed by Savitri in respect of the plots of all three villages, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that upon the death of Javitri the succession to Kanhaiya Lal reopened and the interest of Javitri devolved upon her sons. Three revision applications were filed by Savitri and they were numbered as Revision Nos. 167, 168 and 169 of 1962. The revision applications were dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. Civil Misc. Writ. Mo 132 of 1963 has been filed by Savitri praying for relief against, inter alia, the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation dismissing the three revision applications. The connected petition, Civil Misc. Writ No. 234 of 1963, has also been filed by Savitri for the same relief.
(3.) At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for Respondents Nos. 6 to 9. It is pointed out that inasmuch as the plots in dispute lay in three separate villages and separate proceedings in respect of the three sets of plots were taken all along and resulted in three second appeals and thereafter in three revision applications, the Petitioner was bound to file three separate writ petitions and inasmuch as no writ petition had been filed challenging the findings in respect of the plots in village Lachman Nagla, the findings in respect of the remaining plots operate as res judicata, inasmuch as the issues which arose in the three revision applications are identical. Now it is possible that if the Petitioner had sought relief in the two writ petitions filed by her in respect of the plots in two villages only and had not prayed for relief in respect of the plots in the third village Lachman Nagla the plea of res judicata may have operated against her. But it is clear from the relief sought by her in each of the two writ petitions that she has applied for the quashing of the orders disposing of all the three revision applications. The only possible objection and one which has indeed been raised by learned Counsel for the Respondents Nos. 6 to 9, is that the Petitioner should not be permitted to seek relief against the order disposing of the three revision applications through a single or even two writ petitions. As to that, having regard to the circumstances, it seems to me that the Petitioner should be allowed to furnish an additional court fee of Rs. 50/ - so that one of the two writ petitions should be treated as a consolidated petition in respect of the reliefs relating to the plots in village Lachman Nagla also. The Petitioner has made a prayer for the same and is permitted to furnish the additional court fee. The court fee having been furnished, writ petition No. 132 of 1563 shall be treated as a consolidated petition against the order disposing of two revision applications, including that relating to village Lachman Nagla. The reliefs in respect of the plots covered by the third revision application shall be deleted. Writ Petition No. 234 of 1963 shall be considered as one praying for relief against the order disposing of the third revision application alone and reference to the reliefs against the order disposing of the other two revision applications shall be deleted.;