R.S.SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30 -6 -78, by which the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that in the basic year khatauni, on khata No. 116, the name of Indrapati; on khata No. 24, the name of Ram Adhar and Indrapati, on khata No. 46, the name of Baba, Gangadeen, Gingen, Girja Shanker, and Indrapati and on khata No. 234, the name of Ram Adhar and Ram Dular were recorded as tenure -holders. An objection was filed under Section 9 -A (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by Girja Singh, respondent No. 3 claiming to be sole tenure -holder and denying the title of Smt. Indrapati on the ground that she had remarried and her name has been wrongly recorded in the revenue papers, which should be expunged. Another objection was filed by Smt. Indrapati, the petitioner, claiming to be co -tenure -holder of all the aforesaid khatas with half share therein. The relationship between the parties will be clear from the admitted pedigree given, below: BAIJNATH | ____________________________________________ || Ram Dular Ram Gopal || Avadh behari Ram Adhar = Indrapati | Girjashankar There is no dispute about the fact that Avadh Behari, husband of Smt, Indrapati, petitioner died before the year 1937, and Ram Dular, the father -in -law of the petitioner died in 1949 when Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (Act No. XVIII of 1937) was in force, The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioner and declared her to be co -tenure -holder in all the disputed khatas with 1/2 share. The Consolidation Officer also recorded a finding that remarriage of Indrapati, as set -up by the respondents, has not been proved. The respondents preferred an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was partly allowed. The petitioner's claims in respect of khata No. 116 for 1/2 share was maintained but the claim of the petitioner for rest of the holdings was rejected. However, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) maintained the finding of Consolidation Officer that no remarriage had taken place. Two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) one revision was filed by the petitioner and the other revision was filed by respondent No. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision, of the petitioner and allowed therevision of Girja Shanker, respondent No. 3. While accepting the revision of the respondent, the Deputy Director of Consolidation also recorded a finding that the remarriage of petitioner has been proved. The effect of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that the claim of the petitioner stood rejected in respect of all the aforesaid khatas -in -dispute. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation before this court.
(3.) THERE were two main questions for consideration in this case. Firstly, whether remarriage of Smt. Indrapati has been proved and secondly, what is the share of Indrapati in the disputed holdings.;