K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19-11-70' whereby the claim of the petitioner was negatived. He has also prayed for quashing the order dated 27-1-70 passed, by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, whereby the order dated 19-6-1969 allowing the revision petition of the petitioner was set aside.
(2.) The dispute in the present writ petition is with regard to Khatas. Nos. 34 and 36 wherein the petitioner-had claimed l/10th share. According to* the petitioner his grandfather Jaipal had l/5th share. The share of Jaipal had devolved upon the petitioners father Jagar Deo and Dhanai. On the death of Jagar Deo the petitioner became entitled to l/10th share in the disputed Khatas. In the year 1937 Dhanai: himself and on behalf of the petitioner Ram Deo had executed a sale deed in favour of Hingu, father of the contesting opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6. According to the petitioner the aforesaid sale deed is invalid and did not confer any right upon the vendee so far as the share of the present petitioner is-concerned. It has been emphasised even before me that Dhanai was not natural guardian of the petitioner when: he executed a sale deed on behalf of the petitioner as well, hence no title in. respect of the share of the petitioner-accrued to the vendee by means of the sale deed dated 22-11-37. The Consolidation Officer in his judgment dated 17-11-66 and the appellate authority in: his judgment dated 12-1-67 had accepted the validity of the sale deed executed by the petitioners uncle Dhanai and they had recognised the claim of the vendee but in revision the revisional Court vide its order dated 19-6-1969 accepted the claim of the petitioner and held that the sale deed was invalid so far as the share of the petitioner is concerned. The aforesaid order dated 19-6-1969 has been set aside by the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 27-11-70 and through the impugned judgment dated 19-11-70 passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, the judgment given by the appellate authority on 12-1-67 has been confirmed. This time the revisional Court did not accept the-contention of the petitioner about the invalidity of the sale deed executed by his uncle Dhanai in the year 1937 and the revisional Court has also emphasised that on attaining majority the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid sale deed within three years, hence his right had become extinguished and he cannot challenge the sale deed thereafter.
(3.) Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contention that the petitioners uncle being de facto guardian or manager in the circumstances of the present case had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of the father of the contesting opposite parties 4 to 6 and according to him the impugned judgment dated 19-11-70 suffers from patent error and deserves to be quashed.;