KASHI Vs. D.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute relates to Khata No. 29 situate in village Dandupur Pargana Soraon, District Allahabad. In the basic year the said Khata was recorded in the names of Jharee and Rameshwar sons of Baiju, Buddhan and Dassu sons of Jageshwar representing the petitioner's branch. On the commencement of the consolidation in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, Ram Bahadur and Raj Bahadur, respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein sons of Ram Kishore filed an objection claiming themselves co -tenure holders of the land in dispute along with the petitioners. Under the said objection it was pleaded by them that the land in dispute was ancestral holding of the parties and it was acquired by Baiju and Mst. Sukhiya. A family pedigree was given in the objection. Matadeen was shown as common ancestor who had two sons Devideen and Ram Ratan. The petitioners representing the branch of Devideen and the respondents according to them represents the branch of Ram Ratan. Ram Ratan was married to Smt. Sukhiya. Puddan is son of Smt. Sukhiya. Puddan got one son namely Ram Kishore and the contesting respondents are sons of Ram Kishore. It was stated that at the time of death of Smt. Sukhiya, Puddan was minor and he was being looked after by his cousin Baiju son of Devideen and the family remained joint. On the commencement of the consolidation operation in the village they came to know that their names are not recorded in the revenue records. It was further pleaded that their father Ram Kishore could not raise any objection during the first consolidation operation in the village as in an accident he had lost his both legs and was confined to Mirzapur hospital for about five years since 1954. Ram Kishore could not move due to imputation of his legs. Ultimately, he died about two years ago hence the objections. The said objection is dated 19th of March, 1984.

(2.) IN reply, the petitioners herein disputed the pedigree given by the objectors and stated that Matadeen was the common ancestor who had two sons Devideen and Ishwardeen. Ishwardeen was married to Smt. Sukhiya who died issueless and therefore, after the death of Smt. Sukhiya the property reverted to the branch of Devideen represented by the petitioners. It was further pleaded that Ram Kishore, father of the objectors contested the case during the first round of consolidation in the village and by filing objection claiming cotenancy wherein he ultimately lost in appeal. A decision by Revenue Court, Soraon and Hadiya was given on 18th of October, 1957 holding that Ram Kishore has no share in the disputed property and the said decision operates as res judicata and stops Ram Kishore and his sons to say otherwise.

(3.) THE Consolidation Officer rejected the oral testimony produced by the objectors as untrustworthy and held that: