SALIL KUMAR RAI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri O.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel representing respondent No. 4.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Indar Pandey had two sons Jokhan and Gomti. Jokhan had one son Kapil Dev. Respondent No. 4 is the son of Kapil Dev, i.e., the grand son of Jokhan. Gomti had one son Ram Adhare. Ram Adhare died issueless. The pedigree as narrated above is admitted by the parties. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 claim to inherit the property of Ram Adhare excluding each other. The petitioner claims inheritance alleging herself to be the daughter of Gomti, i.e., the sister of Ram Adhare while respondent No. 4 denies that the petitioner is the daughter of Ram Adhare and claims to inherit the estate of Ram Adhare under Sectino 171(2)(o) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950').
(3.) Before the Consolidation Officer, both the parties filed documentary evidence in support of their case. The petitioner filed extracts of family registers showing her to be the daughter of Gomti and also the Date of Birth Register in support of her claim. One Pheku, the brother-in- law of Gomti and one Bhuvneshwar Tiwari, the alleged family priest of Gomti were also produced as witnesses by the petitioner to prove that she was the daughter of Ram Adhare. Before the Consolidation Officer, the respondent No. 4 took the plea that petitioner was the daughter of Pheku and not the daughter of Gomti. Respondent No. 4 also produced the extracts of Death Register in support of his plea that the daughter born to Gomti had died after six months from the date of her birth and thus petitioner was not the daughter of Gomti. The mother of respondent No. 4 was produced as a witness by respondent No. 4 to prove his case.;