MUSAI Vs. DEORAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN basic year records prepared under U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act both petitioner and opposite parties were entered as co-tenants over Khata nos. 132 and 115 which comprises of fourteen plots. Both parties filed objection u/S. 9 and claimed to be exclusive tenant of entire khata. The objection of petitioner is understandable but the claim of opposite parties for all the plots was wholly misconceived as shall be clear by the facts which shall be narrated hereafter. It is not disputed that petitioners ancestors were occupancy tenants of all the 14 plots. Some of these plots were mortgaged with ancestor of opposite parties. IN 1909 suit for redemption and possession was filed. It was dismissed as barred by time. Probably as a consequence in it mutation proceedings started which were compromised in 1926 and it was agreed that apart from plots in respect of which suit for redemption was dismissed opposite party shall be entered over plot no. 946. Since then, that is, 1926 both petitioner and opposite parties are entered as co-tenants. The Consolidation Officer held petitioners to be sole sirdar of 8 plots but in respect of six plots, which according to Consolidation Officer, were subject matter of redemption suit both parties were held co-tenants. IN appeal filed by both parties the order in favour of petitioners for 8 plots was upheld but in respect of 6 plots it was modified. The appeal of opposite party was allowed in part and they were held exclusive tenants of these plots. Both parties filed revision. The revision of petitioners was dismissed. But that of opposite party was allowed further. It was held that in redemption suit there were 8 plots and one more plot was given in compromise in correction proceedings. Thereafter opposite parties were entitled to be recorded as exclusive tenants over nine plots. It is against this order that petitioner have come to this court.

(2.) IT has been argued that as opposite parties had claimed six plots in their objection filed u/S. 9 the Deputy Director committed an error of law in allowing their claim for 9 plots. The argument appears to be devoid of any substance. IT is not claimed that in the redemption suit there were less than 8 plots nor is the compromise in mutation proceedings challenged. Learned counsel for opposite parties pointed out that subsequently by an application the claim was extended to nine plots. Even if it would not have been there the order could not be interfered unless it was found that the decree in redemption suit was for 6 plots only.

(3.) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is maintained for 8 plots but it is quashed in respect of plot no. 946. The Deputy Director of Consolidation shall decide the dispute in respect of this plot afresh on possession. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.