S.N. Dwivedi, J. - (1.) In this appeal the real adversaries are close relations. There was one Mohammad Sibtain, He had two wives, Kaniz Hajra and Kaniz Zohra. Kaniz Hajra had two sons, Hasan Mujtaba and Hasan Mortaza. Hasan Murtaza predeceased Mohammad Sibtain, leaving behind his son, Qaiser Hasan. Hasan Mujtaba and Qaiser Hasan are Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the appeal. Kaniz Zohra gave birth to three daughters, Niaz Bano, Tahira Khatoon and Zohra Khatoon. Kaniz Zohra and her three daughters are the Appellants in the appeal There is a contest in the appeal between the Appellants on one side and Hasan Mujtaba and Qaiser Hasan, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the other.
(2.) The dispute flared up before the consolidation authorities in regard to three khatas, 17, 19 and 44, in village Dhansiya. Khata No. 17 was sir of Mohammad Sibtain, khata No. 19 was his grove and khata No. 44 was his khudkasht. The case of the Appellants was that Qaiser Hasan had no concern with any of the three khatas and that on the death of Mohammad Sibtain on 10 -4 -1951 the Appellants and the fourth Respondent, Hasan Mujtaba, inherited all the khatas as his heirs. According to Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Mohammad Sibtain had, during his life time, inducted them as tenants in khata No. 44 and that on the abolition of zamindari they have become sirdars of this khata. They also alleged that Mohammad Sibtain had executed a Will on 4 -6 -1950 under which he gave his proprietary and sir rights in khata No. 17 and half share in khata No. 19 to Qaiser Hasan. The Consolidation Officer rejected the Respondents' case regarding the execution of a Will by Mohammad Sibtain but accepted their case regarding the creation of tenancy in their favour by him during his life -time. On this finding he held that the Appellants and Hasan Mujtaba were the tenureholders of khatas Nos. 17 and 19 and that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were the sirdars of khata No. 44.
(3.) Both parties went up in appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer. In appeal the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the Will set up by the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 was genuine and that the tenancy in their favour over khata No. 44 was not proved. Accordingly he held that the Appellants as well as Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were joint tenureholders in all the three khatas.;