K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, dated 20-1-1987 in a proceeding under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act between Sukhraj and others and Ram Sewak and others. The facts given in various judgments attached with the writ petition are not disputed by the parties. The following questions of law have been urged on behalf of the petitioners. Firstly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the judgment of the Civil Court is no judgment in the eye of law, therefore, the revisional court has patently erred in deciding the claims of the parties in pursuance of the Civil Court judgment in a partition suit.
(3.) SECONDLY, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the shares determined by the Civil Court judgment if added together exceed the whole share owned by the parties, therefore, the judgment is no judgment in the eye of law and is incapable of execution yet the consolidation authorities have placed reliance upon such a judgment, therefore, the impugned judgment contained in Annexure 13 should be quashed. It has been demonstrated that the portion of the shares allotted to the co-sharers would come to 17/16 whereas the whole share owned by the parties will be only 16/16, therefore, the impugned judgment should be quashed. Thirdly, it has been contended that the judgment of the High Court contained in Annexure IV attached with the writ petition has been contradicted by the judgment of the High Court contained in Annexure VI attached with the writ petition, therefore, the latter judgment is a nullity and should be ignored but the consolidation authorities have decided the claims of the parties in consonance with the judgment contained in Annexure VI attached with the writ petition, therefore, the impugned judgment should be quashed.;