RAJ BALI SINGH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a peti tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution arising out of a consolidation matter.

(2.) THE dispute between the pat ties relates to a large number of Khatas spread over in a number of villages, namely, Khata No. 10 of village Maha-raura. Khatas Nos. 7 and 8 of village Deori. Khata No. 42 of village Nibi Gaharwar, Khata No. 6 of village Ram-patti Kalan, Khata No. 7 of village Ram-patti Khurd. Khata No. 31 of village Rani Chak. Khatas Nos. 5 and 18 of village CMiilpi and Khata No. 11 of village Ram chak. The plots in dispute are either the Sir, the Khudkasht or the fixed-rate tenancy plots, comprising a very sub stantial area in hundreds of acres.

(3.) TO start with. there was a mutation proceeding in the year 1929 on the death of Smt. Parmeshwara. widow of Dhadh. Smt. Patirai Kunwar wanted her name to be mutated, while Ohandrika Singh and others (respondents Nos. 4 to 34) wanted their own names to be mutat ed as distant collaterals of Ram Padarath, the father of Smt. Patirai Kunwar. That proceeding culminated into a compromise between Smt. Patirai Kunwar and res pondents Nos. 4 to 34. Then there was a civil suit (No. 3 of 1940) between Smt. Patirai Kunwar and respondents Nos. 4 to 34. In that suit certain arbitrators were appointed by the parties who gave their award. On the basis of the award given by the Arbitrators a compromise application was filed by the parties, and the suit was decided by the Munsif in 'terms of that compromise. Under the compromise Smt. Patirai Kunwar was given half share in the property wibh a life interest. The third litigation was a redemption suit (No. 21 of 1949) under Section 12 of the Agriculturists Relief Act filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 34 or their predecessors against respondents Nos. 35 to 54 impleading Smt. Patiraj Kunwar also as a defendant. Respondents Nos. 4 to 34 had in that suit claim ed to be the heirs and legal representa tives of the original mortgagor along with Smt. Patiraj Kunwar and on that basis they had sought the redemption of the mortgage. That suit was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge on 28th December. 1951 on the finding that the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 4 to 34) had failed to prove that they were the heirs of the original mortgagor or that they were entitled to sue for redemption. Res pondents Nos. 4 to 34 preferred an appeal against the iudgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, but during the pendency of the appeal before the Addi tional District Judge they filed an ap plication for permission to withdraw from the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The Additional District Judge allowed that application with the following order on 17-8-1962:-