B. Dayal J. - (1.) THESE two connected writ petitions tiled by Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfilal and Satnarainlal and other have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single judge of this Court as he found it difficult to agree with a single judge decision of this Court Ram Jag Mistri v. Deputy Director of Consoli dation, AIR 1968 All 419. The facts of the case are now no more in dispute and have been decided finally by the Joint Director of Consolidation who, in turn, ac cepted the findings of fact arrived at in Second Appeal by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The relevant facts may now be stated in short One Udaibhan Lal had four sons, name ly, Bhagwati Pd., Satya Narain Lal, Daya Shankar Lal and Asharfi Lal. Smt. Prema Devi is the widow of Asharfi Lal, who died in the lifetime of his father Udaibhan Lal. When Udaibhan Lal died in 1936, he left zamindari as also sir and khudkasht plots. On the death of Udaibhan Lal, the names of his three surviving sons, namely, Bhag-wati Pd., Satya Narain Lal and Daya Shankar Lal, along with Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfi Lal, were mutated in all the three villages, Dasuati, Spnahti and Pathkauli in the district of Basti where the properties of Udaibhan Lal were situated. In 1947, two of the brothers, Satya Narain Lal and Bhagwati Pd., filed suit No. 460 of 1947 in the Court of the Munsif, Basti, for a declaration that Smt. Prema Devi had no share in the property and to this suit Smt. Prema Devi was made a defen dant. The third brother Daya Shankar Lal was also joined as a pro forma defen dant This suit was ultimately compro mised in 1949 and a compromise decree was passed. Under the compromise decree. Smt. Prema Devi was given certain plots for her maintenance in two villages, Dasuati and Pathkauli. It is now a finding of fact that after the compromise in 1949 Smt. Prema Devi is in possession of those plots. She is not in possession of any other property of the family. In this com promise it was expressly provided that she would be entitled to maintain herself out of the income of those plots but she would have no right to alienate the same. It was further provided in the compromise that on her death, the property would re vert back to the collaterals of her hus band. But it appears that even alter the com promise the revenue records were not corrected and her name continued as a co-proprietor in all the three villages. On the coming into force of the U. P. Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, her name was recorded as co-bhumidhar of all the khudkasht and sir plots in all the three villages. In 1960, consolidation pro ceedings started and objections were filed by Satya Narain Lal and others that the name of Smt. Prema Devi was wrongly entered in the revenue records which, should be expunged and that she was only entitled to be entered as an Asami over the plots given to her in the compromise in the two villages. Since the property lay in three villages and related to three different khatas, three separate objections were filed. The Consolidation Officer allowed all the three objections and ex punged the name of Smt. Prema Devi as co-bhumidhar from all the three khatas. He directed her name to be recorded as an Asami over the plots given to her under the compromise. On appeal, the decision was reversed and her name was maintained as co-bhumidhar in all the khatas. On second appeal, the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the order of the Consolidation Officer and allowed the appeal. On revision by Smt Prema Devi, the learned Joint Director of Consolidation maintained the order ex punging her name as co-bhumidhar in the two villages in which she had been given plots under the compromise and retaining her name as a Asami over the plots given to her. But he allowed the revision re garding village Sonahti where she had not been given any plot. The Joint Director of Consolidation thought that her rights in that village were not governed by the compromise. He directed that her name as co-bhumidhar would continue on the plots relating to that village Sonahti. Against this decision of the Joint Dir ector of Consolidation, one writ petition has been filed by Smt. Prema Devi chal lenging the correctness of the order in two revisions which were dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation and the other cross-writ petition has been filed by Satya Narain Lal and others challenging the correctness of the decision relating to village Sonahti. Both the writ petitions depending on common facts and law have been heard together and are being dis posed of by this common judgment.
(2.) TO deal first with writ petition 1235 of 1963 filed by Satya Narain Lal and others, it is sufficient to say that the learn ed Joint Director of Consolidation com pletely misdirected himself. The compro mise in the civil suit related to all the three villages and in lieu of her right of maintenance. Smt. Prema Devi was allow ed only the plots in two villages. It was not necessary to allow plots in all the three villages to satisfy her need of main tenance. The position on the date of the suit was that Smt. Prema Devi's husband having died in 4he lifetime of his father who also died in 193G Smt. Prema Devi got no interest in the joint family pro perty. She was merely entitled to main tenance.Under this compromise she sot certain plots of land in her possession for her maintenance. After the compromise she was merely in possession of those plots and her rights were confined to those plots only. Even if her name continued, as joint owner by mistake, it could not give her any rights. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in Second Appeal was, therefore, right in expunging her name from all the three villages. In the petition filed by Smt Prema Devi, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that upon the passing of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, Smt Prema Devi acquired full Bhumidhari rights and in any case the compromise decree not having been enforced, had no effect upon her rights which she acquired by her name having been retained on the whole of the property as co-bhumidhar.
(3.) THE second point is concluded by a finding of fact that she was never in possession of the property other than tiie plots given to her by the compromise decree and the mere fact of her name re maining on the revenue records cannot be sufficient to invest her with any right. Under the Hindu Law, as it stood in 1936, she got no right in the joint family pro perty and the only property which came Snto her possession by means of the com promise decree were the specific plots. Even under Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she could improve her position only in respect of property in her possession. So its effect has to be C9nsidered only regarding the specific plots given to her in lieu of maintenance.;