- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Feeling ag grieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation whereunder al lowing the revision filed under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the contesting respondent and uphold ing the claim of the objectors in respect of the agricultural holdings pertaining to Khata No. 31, the name of the petitioners were directed to be expunged from the basic year Khatauni determining theshares of Deo Narain andsurendra Kumar to be one-half share each, they have now approached this Court seeking redress praying for the quashing of the revisional order.
(2.) I have heard Shri N. Lal, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri G. N. Verma, learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. In the basic year Khatauni the plots in dispute were recorded in the names of Deo Narain, Raj Karan S/o Ram Pal, Satya Narain and Ashok Kumar. An objection under Sec tion 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar S/o Raj Karan raising a dispute that the entry of the names of Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain in the basic year Khatauni showing them to be co- tenure-holders was incorrect asserting that the plots in dispute exclusively belonged to these objectors having equal shares therein praying that the names of Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain be ex punged. This objection was contested by Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain claiming that they had half share in the plots in dispute and the basic year entry so far as it disclosed their names as co-tenure holders was not liable to be disturbed, asserting further that Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar were entitled to only 1/4 share each in the land in dispute. The contesting respondents had set up a claim that their predecessor-in-in-terest Ram Pal Singh had obtained a lease in respect of the land in dispute from Smt. Thakurain Kubera Kunwar on 8th May, 1943. It was further claimed that the plots in dispute had fallen in the share of Kubera Kunwar who was the Zamindar and she had become exclusive owner thereof in which capacity she had executed the Patta in favour of Ram Pal Singh. It was further claimed that the agricultural holdings in dispute pertained to the exclusive share of Thakurain Kubera Kunwar and was in her exclusive possession at the time of the execution of the Patta in favour of Ram Pal Singh. It was on the strength of this Patta claimed to have been executed by Thakurain Kubera Kunwar that the des cendants or the Ram Pal Singh claimed to be the exclusive tenure holders of the land in dispute. Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain claimed to be the successor-in-interest of one of the cozamindar and co-sir holder. Thakurain Kubera Kunwar had filed a suit for partition wherein vide order of the Collector dated 15-1-36 separate Qurras were prepared and separate Patti was carved out in the names of Smt. Kubera Kunwar andlsmt. Chavinathi Kunwar. The petitioners claimed that in fact the land in dispute remained unaffected either by the partition suit or the family settlement as the husband of Thakurain Kubera Kunwar had died mach before the enforcement of U. P. Tenancy Act and after the death of her husband the name of Smt. Thakurain Kubera Kuitwar was recorded as a widow for the sake of consolation and the right of Smt. Thakurain Kubera Kunwar as well Smt. Chavinathi Kunwar on account of death of their husband having taken place much before the year 1937 could only be that of a widow of a joint Hindu Family having only a right of maintenance and could not go beyond that. She had no right whatsoever in the property as a co-sharer proprietor or co-sir holder. It was also claimed that the Patta which was being set up as the basis of title by Deo Narain and another was invalid and ineffective in law. The invalidity of the Patta is based on the assertions that 'sir' could not have been transferred.
(3.) THE claim of the petitioners had been contested asserting that the record ing of the names of the petitioners in the basic year Khatauni was the result of an exparte decree which had subsequently been set aside and the petitioners could not derive any advantage out of the same. It was asserted that there had been a parti tion between the co-sharers and a separate "patti" had been carved out in the name of Thakurain Kubera Kunwar who had ex ecuted the Patta in favour of Ram Pal Singh. So far as the family settlement is concerned it has been asserted that it was of no consequence as that family settle ment related to the property of Smt. Chavinathi Kunwar and not the property of Smt. Thakurain Kubera Kunwar. The Consolidation Officer found that the land in dispute was "sir" at the relevant time. He also recorded a finding that there had been family settlement in the year 1944 to which Laxman Prasad and Ram Pal Singh were parties wherein it had been mentioned that Jageshar Singh and Laxman had died as members of the joint family. In that family settlement so far as the proprietary right was concerned Shiv Babu was given 1/4 share and Durg Vijay Singh and Shiv Bahadur and Tribhuwan were given 1/4 share and Ram Pal and Rajwant were given 1/4 share and Ram Dular was given 1/4 share. It was indicated that Ashok Kumar and Satya Narain, Deo Narain, and Surendr a Kumar who were the descendants of Rajwant and Ram Pal were entitled to 1/2 share of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the basic year entries were maintained rejecting the objections of Deo Narain and Surendra Kumar whose share was determined to be 1/4th each.;