C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) In the basic year the names of the respondents were entered in revenue records. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming co-tenancy rights on the ground that they being the daughters sons of Smt. Bhagwanti were entitled to co-tenancy rights. The objection of the petitioners was contested by the respondents on the ground that Smt. Kutra who is said to be the mother of the petitioner was not the daughter of Smt. Bhagwanti. In the alternative it was also pleaded that since the respondents were in adverse possession, the petitioners rights, if any, stood extinguished. The Consolidation Officer held that Smt. Kutra was the daughter of Smt. Bhagwanti. He also held that as the petitioners had never been in possession for the last 25 to 30 years, the respondents acquired rights on the basis of adverse possession. The petitioners filed an appeal but the same was dismissed. They then filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who although dismissed the revision but affirmed the finding that the petitioners were the daughters sons of Smt. Bhagwanti. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that once the consolidation authorities have found that the petitioners were the daughters sons of Smt. Bhagwanti, they became co-tenure-holders along with the respondents and as possession of one co-tenure-holder would be deemed to be the possession on behalf of all other co-tenure-holders, hence the respondents could not acquire any right on the basis of adverse possession. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on decisions in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314 and Kailash Rai v. Jai Jai Ram, 1973 RD 183 . He had further urged that the respondents have not specifically pleaded for ouster of the petitioners but have pleaded only that they were in adverse possession. He has urged that even assuming that the respondents were in possession, they cannot acquire any right on the ground of adverse possession unless there was a finding that the respondents ousted the petitioners from possession and they themselves continued in possession for more than 12 years after 1358-F because the succession opened only after the deemed civil death of Smt. Bhagwanti which has been held to be the year 1950, i. e. 1357-58F.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that there is a concurrent finding by all the three consolidation authorities that the petitioners were not in possession for more than 25 years which clearly shows that they were ousted from possession and the respondents acquired rights over the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision in Ram Dass v. Board of Revenue, U. P., Allahabad, 1967 All LJ 92 : (AIR 1967 All 481) . He has further urged that the respondents could acquire title on the basis of adverse possession if it was found that they were in possession of the land in dispute for more than the period of 12 years, and as the finding recorded by all the three consolidation authorities is that the respondents have been in possession for more than 25 to 30 years, hence they would be deemed to be exclusive tenure-holders. The judgments of the consolidation authorities do not suffer from any manifest error of law.;