NANHA Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING consolidation operations the petitioners filed an objection claiming to be co-sharers in the holding. Their claim was contested by respondents 4 and 5. One of the issues framed by the Consolidation Officer was whether Beni and Gappu died before the death of Chandi, if so, its effect. In support of their Case that Chandi had died before the other two, the petitioners had, inter alia filed extracts from death registers. The Consolidation officer after considering the evidence on record, held that Gappu and Beni died before Chandi. On, inter alia, this finding the objection of the petitioners was rejected. The petitioners went up in appeal. The Settlement Officer elaborately discussed the extracts from the death registers and rejected them. He confirmed the finding of the consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation stated that he had carefully gone through the record of the case in the two courts below and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicants as well as those of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The arguments put forward before him by the learned counsel for the applicants were not new and were the same which had been put forward before the two learned lower courts. He observed:-

(2.) IN Girijanandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary (AIR 1967 SC 1124) (Para 12) the Supreme Court held that:-

(3.) THE view of this Full Bench was re-affirmed by a Larger Bench in Ram Murti Saran v. State of U. P. 1970 All LJ 1177 = (AIR 1971 All 54) (FB), as well as Prem Prakash Virmani v. State Government 1970 All LJ 1197 = (AIR 1971 All 82) (FB)