D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Deo Dutt and four others to challenge the orders of the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Dy. Director of Consolidation and Jt. Director of Consolidation, whereby their claim based on sale -deeds executed by Kateshwar, Respondent No. 5, were rejected.
(2.) ON the learned Advocate for Parmatma, Respondent No. 4, making an objection, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners made a statement that In this proceeding only the judgments and orders of the Consolidation authorities, in so far as the sale -deed on 23 -12 -1953 was considered, be looked into. What is desired is that the finding recorded with regard to this sale deed be quashed and the rights of the Petitioners upheld with regard to the plots transferred under this document. The material facts of the case are that the disputed plots were the Bhumidhari of Kateshwar, Respondent No. 5. He executed a sale -deed in favour of Deo Dutt on 23 -12 -1953, in respect of plots Nos. 204, 205, 239/3, and 245/1. The sale -deed was registered on 11 -3 -1954. Meanwhile Kateshwar executed a gift deed in favour of Parmatma reserving the right of possession during his life time with an additional stipulation that after his death his wife, Smt. Dhanraji, can also remain in possession. It was after the death of Kateshwar and Smt. Dhanraji that Parmatma could enter into possession. Thereafter Kateshwar instituted a declaratory suit for cancellation of the gift deed. This suit was compromised and under the compromise Parmatma could have his name recorded along with Kateshwar and Kateshwar had the right to remain in possession of the gifted properties.
(3.) PLOT No. 245/1 was originally recorded in the names of Ram Dularey and Sita Ram. The Petitioners filed an objection Under Section 9 claiming to be the Bhumidhars of this plot also. Parmatma, however, claimed to be the Bhumidhar on the basis of the gift deed . With regard to plots Nos. 204, 205 and 239/3, Parmatma alone filed an objection based on the gift -deed executed in his favour. Second Appeal No. 867 pertains to the three plots, while Second Appeal No. 869 to the fourth plot No. 245/1. Both the Second Appeals were dismissed and the Dy. Director of Consolidation also held that the sale -deed said to have been executed on 23 -12 -1953 was executed after the gift -deed and hence did not confer any title in the transferee. It was for this reason that the names of the Petitioners were either expunged or were not entered against the four plots.;