- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Ms. Merun Dey holding brief of Sri A. N. Bhar-gava appearing for the petitioners.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in the revised list but no one has ap peared on behalf of the respondents. Undisputed pedigree of litigating parties as under: Govind Bisehswar (x) Sheo Harah Mahadeo Mahabir Parmeshwar Abhilakhi (Daughter) Rrabhunath Ram Sakal Badri Ram Saran Anant Ram Dispute relates to khata No. 60 and khata No. 90 which consists of only one plot i. e. plot No. 545. In the basic year khata No. 60 was recorded in the name of Badri and Ram Saran (the petitioners), Ram Sakal son of Mahadeo (respondent No. 4), Anant Ram son of Prabhunath (respondent No. 5), Smt. Abhilakhi and Mahabir. Khata No. 90 was recorded in the name of Mahabir. During consolidation operation an objection under section 9-A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 claiming 2/3rd share in khata No. 60 inter-alia on the Aground that land in dispute was ancestral and Mahabir had 1/3rd share and he exe cuted gift deeds dated 11. 5. 1929 and 13. 12. 1935 of his share in their favour and thus they are entitled to 2/3rd share. It was also pleaded that though plot No. 556 of khata No. 60 was not subject-matter of Hibanama but they were entitled over share of Mahabir in the said plot on the basis of pos session and their name was directed to be mutated vide order dated 12. 2. 1950 passed by Naya Panchayat. It was further pleaded that Ram Sakal executed Hibba of 1/3rd share in plot Nos. 548, 555, 556 in favour of Smt. Abhilakhi. The objection was contested by the petitioners on the ground that since Mahabir pre-deceased Sheo Harsh (their ancestor) as such they are exclusively enti tled to the share of Mahabir. Petitioners also filed objection in respect of khata No. 90 claiming exclusive rights on the ground that Mahabir had executed mortgaged deed dated 31. 8. 1919 in favour of their father Parmeshwar.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer after analyzing the evidence both oral as well as documentary, recorded a finding that Hibanama of 1929 bears the signature of Mahabir whereas that of 1935 bears his thumb impression, and thus disbelieved the same. A further finding has been recorded that contesting respondents 4 and 5 have failed to prove the Hibanama, and the same was never acted upon. THE case set up by the petitioners based on inheritance on the ground that Mahabir predeceased their ancestor Sheo Harsh as such they are enti tled to inherit the share of Mahabir was disbelieved on the ground that they failed to produce any evidence to establish that Mahabir predeceased Sheo Harsh. Accord ingly, both the parties were held entitled to 1/2 share each, Smt. Abhilakhi was also held entitled to 1/4th share in plot Nos. 548, 555 and 556 on the basis of Hibanama executed by respondent No. 4 Ram Sakal in her fayour. However, she was not given any share in the rest of the plots of the khatas in dispute. Petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 and 5 both went up in appeal. Assis tant Settlement Officer Consolidation consolidated all the four appeals and by com mon order dated 4. 7. 1970 dismissed the same. Both the parties went up in revision. Deputy Director of Consolidation consoli dated all the four revisions and decided the same by a common order dated 25. 1. 1974.;