- (1.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows:-
(2.) CHHEDI , the father of Bans Bahore and Ram Bahore petitioners and their uncle Chunna were Zamindars in village Barkuiyan, Tappa Kandar, district Basti. They mortgaged their entire Zamindariproperty situated in the aforesaid village to Mahadeo Ram and his brothers. The disputed land was sir and khudkasht of the petitioners. The mortgagees trans ferred their mortgagee rights to certain persons. Shitla Prasad, Ram Prasad and Oudh Prasad, opposite parties Nos. 6 to 8 are the representatives in interest of the purchasers of part of the mortgagee rights. The contesting opposite parties are sons of Ganesh and Ram Lochan, who were also the purchasers of the mort gagee rights. The mortgage was execut ed in 1926. The sale of the mortgagee rights took place in 1938. After enforcement of the U. P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act, the purchasers of the mortgagee-rights partitioned the mortgagee rights amongst themselves. Opposite parties Nos. 6 to 8 who are representatives of the other part of the mortgagee rights, deposited five times of the rent of their share of the disputed land and became sirdars of the same. The other transferees of the mortgagee rights acquired bhumidhari rights in their share of the disputed land. In 1942, the mother of the peti tioners filed a suit as their guardian for redemption of the mortgage. This suit was filed under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The suit was decreed on payment of certain amount. The amount was not deposited and, therefore, the mortgage could not be redeem ed. In 1944, another suit was filed for redemption. This suit was filed on be half of the minors by a person, who alleged himself to be their next friend. The suit was dismissed in default. According to the petitioners, that person who filed the second suit was not their next friend and he had no right to file the suit. The petitioners then filed another suit for redemption oa 23rd April 1959. Meanwhile, the aforesaid village was placed under consolidation operation and the suit was staved. Objection was filed by the petitioners before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Consolidation Officer allowed their objections. The opposite parties then filed six appeals before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Basti. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act and allowed the appeals. The order passed by the Consolidation Officer was set aside. The petitioners then lied seven appeals before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also held that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act and, consequently, dismissed the appeal. The petitioners then filed revisions and the revisions were also dismissed. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decreed the second appeal and the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decreed the revision were wrong in holding that Section 6 of the Limitation Act did not apply to cases under the U.P. ZamindariAbolition and Land Reforms Act and there fore, their Judgments were illegal and manifestly wrong.;