K.N. Seth, J. - (1.) The appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The dispute related to Khata No. 2 of which one Jiwa Ram was the Sir and Khud Kasht holder. On the death of Jiwa Ram in 1920 the property was inherited by his two sons Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra. Chhabi Ram died in 1925 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ram Katori. It appears that some dispute arose between Ram Chandra and Smt. Ram Katori which was settled by execution of an agreement dated February 12, 1927. It was later on superseded by a new agreement dated February 10, 1936 under which Smt. Ram Katori was to be paid Rs. 125/- annually in cash and she was given right to cultivate khata No. 2. She had a right to sub-let the land if she so desired. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the plots of Khata No. 2 in dispute were recorded as the Sirdari of Smt. Ram Katori. She obtained Bhumidhari Sanad in respect of this Khata and thereafter in July 1954 she executed a sale deed in respect of a part of this Khata in favour of her son-in-law Krishna Murari Lal, the appellant before us. In March 1955 she executed a gift deed in favour of the appellant in respect of the remaining plots of Khata No. 2. The appellant's name came to be recorded as Bhumidhar over tha entire Khata.
(2.) During consolidation proceedings which commenced in 1965. Ram Chandra filed an objection praying that the name of Krishna Murari Lal be expunged from Khata No. 2 as it had been wrongly recorded in his name. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Ram Chandra holding that the claim of Ram Chandra was barred by time in view of the sale deed and gift deed executed by Smt. Ram Katori which were not got cancelled by Ram Chandra and his right as a tenure holder got extinguished by lapse of time. At the same time he held that possession of Krishna Murari Lal over the land in dispute was permissive hence he could not claim Sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The same order was maintained by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the revision filed by Ram Chandra holding that Krishna Murari shall be deemed to have interest in the land covered by Khata No. 2 only so long as Smt. Ram Katori was alive. The question of devolution of this property after the death of Smt. Ram Katori was left open. Both the parties filed petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge allowed the petition filed by Ram Chandra and held him entitled to be declared Bhumidhar of the property. The writ petition of Krishna Murari Lal was dismissed on the ground that he did not acquire Sirdari or Bhumidhari rights over the land in question.
(3.) It may be mentioned that apart from the land comprised in Khata No. 2 half a share in two other Khatas namely Khatas Nos. 24 and 61 was also claimed by Smt. Ram Katori on the ground that there had been a partition between Chhabi Ram and Ram Chandra before Chhabi Ram died. As a widow of Chhabi Ram she claimed half a share in Khatas Nos. 24 and 61. The consolidation authorities as well as the learned single Judge held that the family was joint when Chhabi Ram died and consequently Ram Chandra alone succeeded to the entire property left behind by Jiwa Ram. That decision has become final between the parties.;