R.P.Singh - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 23 rd September, 1983, holding Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, to be the sole bhurnidhar of the Khatas in dispute.
(2.) FOR appreciating the facts of the case, the admitted pedigree given below would be relevant :- Dhiraj ______________l______________ I I I I Baran Raghoo Banga Nanga II II. Sarvajeet Kuldeep Sri Nath Smt. Budhia I Smt. Phulrasani Brief facts of the case are that both the parties were recorded as co- bhumidhars over the khatas in dispute in the basic year. Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, filed an objection claiming to be the sole bhurnidhar of the khatas in dispute i.e. Khatas nos. 737, 738, 379, 318 and 842 on the ground that her father Sarvajeet was originally the tenure-holder of the Khatas in dispute and after obtaining bhumidhari sanad, executed a registered sale deed in favour of her daughter respondent no. 3 in the case on 1-8-1967 and hence she is the sole tenure-holder of the same and that the names of the petitioners are liable to be expunged therefrom. Respondent no. 3 jn support of her case filed a registered partition deed executed on 20-10-1947 which was duly signed by Sarvajeet, Kuldeep and Sri Nath on the basis of which the Khatas in dispute came to the share of Sarvajeet alone and hence Sarvajeet duly executed the sale deed in respect thereof after obtaining bhumidhari sanad in favour of her daughter, respondent no. 3 on the basis of which respondent no. 3 became the sole bhumidhar. The objection filed by the respondent no. 3 was contested by the petitioners on the ground that the parties are coming down from the common ancestor i.e., Dhiraj and hence they are all entitled to the share in the Khatas in dispute as co-tenure-holders and on the basis of the pedigree set up in the case they claimed that they are rightly recorded as co-tenure-holders and that the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947 set up by the respondent no. 3 was never acted upon and hence the respondent no. 3 is not entitled to be recorded as sole bhumidhar over the khatas in dispute.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer held that the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947 set up by Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, in support of her claim was never acted upon between the parties and hence dismissed the objection filed by Smt. Phulrasani allotting shares to both the parties in accordance with the admitted pedigree set up in the case. However, in respect of Khata no. 842, the name of Kuldeep, the petitioner's father, was ordered to be expunged and hence both the parties filed appeals before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who partly allowed the appeal of Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3 and upheld the shares of the parties on the basis of the pedigree holding that the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947, was not acted upon. Thus the claim of respondent no. 3 on the basis of the said partition deed was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Feeling aggrieved, both the parties went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who, however, on appraisal of the evidence on record, held that the partion deed, dated 20-10 1947 was acted upon between the parties and since the signatures on this family partition deed by Kuldeep and others had never been denied by them, nor they at any point of time filed any suit for cancellation of this deed, hence the parties are bonnd by the partition deed executed by them which was acted upon and thus allowed the revision filed by Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, holding her to be sole tenure-holder of the khatas in dispute and dimissed the revision filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this Court. The crucial question to be decided in the present case whether the title in the case would be decided on the basis of the pedigree set up or whether on the basis of the partition deed, dated 20-10-1947, Sarvajeet alone became sole tenure-holder of the khatas in dispute and on the basis of the sale deed executed by Sarvajeet, his daugnter Smt. Phulrasani, respondent no. 3, is entitled to be the sole tenure-holder of the same.;