BHUREY Vs. PIR BUX AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THUS appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. The Respondents filed an objection Under Section 9 Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be the cosharers in the sirdari holding in dispute. The Appellant contested the claim. According to him he was the exclusive sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer held that Bhurey alone was entitled to be recorded as Sirdar. He dismissed the objections filed by the Respondents. On appeal the findings were reversed by it he Settlement Officer. He directed that the names of all the parties be recorded as co -sharers. The matter was take if to the Deputy Director in revision. He allowed the, revision and restored the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed a writ petition and succeeded. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Director and sent back the case to him for decision afresh. This time Bhurey has come up in appeal.

(2.) IT appears that one Chuttan was recorded as Sirdar of the plots in dispute. The Appellant Bhurey on 8 -11 -1956 filed a suit for declaration that he was the sole sirdar of the plots in dispute and that the revenue records be corrected accordingly. The suit was filed in the civil court. On 22 -12 -1956 the Plaintiff Bhurey and Defendant Chuttan filed a compromise in which the claim of Plaintiff Bhurey was admitted. On 14 -1 -1957 the Civil Court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.

(3.) THEREAFTER consolidation proceedings commenced and the question whether Bhurey alone was the sirdar of the plots in dispute was agitated before She consolidation authorities.