Satish Chandra, C.J. and Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) THE dispute relates to Bhumidhari plots Nos. 1361 and 1144. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that Phool Chand had half share in both these plots, while Rajpati and Tahsildar together had the balanced half. He rejected the claim of the Petitioners that they were the exclusive Bhumidhars on the finding that Phool Chand's name continued to be recorded as co -bhumidhar in the revenue papers and that he was also in possession. For the Petitioner, reliance was placed upon a compromise between the parties in mutation proceedings. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that such a compromise has no bearing on the question of title.
(2.) FOR the Petitioners it was urged that an admission contained in a compromise reached in mutation proceedings was admissible in evidence and the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have given due weight to it. In Bhurey v. Pir Box, 1973 AWR 279 a Division Bench ruled that admissions in mutation proceedings were irrelevant on the question of title. A learned single Judge held that this case requires reconsideration. He, therefore, referred the whole case to a larger Bench. The question of law which has caused the reference does not really arise in this case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that the compromise was not binding on Phool Chand because he was at that time a minor and there was no evidence that Bharosey had been appointed his guardian. In the next place, the Deputy Director of Consolidation emphasized that even though in the compromise Phool Chand's guardian had admitted that Phool Chand was not in possession yet his name continued to be recorded in the revenue papers which shows that Phool Chand in fact continued to remain in possession. In the alternative, the Deputy Director of Consolidation held that admissions in mutation proceedings ate valueless qua title.
(3.) IN fact the Deputy Director of Consolidation had considered the effect of the admission in mutation proceedings that Phool Chand was not in possession and he has refused to give any due weight to that admission, and found that nonetheless his name continued to be recorded as Bhumidhar which shows that he was also in possession. The admission on the question of possession was duly taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.;