AMARNATH Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the basic year, the petitioners were recorded over the disputed land. The contesting opposite party Suresh Kumar had filed objection under S.9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and had claimed 1/2 share in the disputed land on the basis of a compromise in suit No. 552 of 1956 as mentioned in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer. It appears that the claim of the contesting opposite party was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the disputed land did not form part of the decree or it was not subject-matter of the partition suit of the year 1956. It was also asserted that the disputed land was gifted to the petitioners by Lakshmi Narayan (plaintiff of the suit of the year 1956). Hence on the date of the compromise the aforesaid Lakshmi Narayan had no right and interest in the property, therefore, the compromise relied upon by the objector Suresh Kumar was not binding upon the petitioners.

(2.) The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidate have given judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional court has recognised the claim of the contesting opposite party Suresh Kumar in the present writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court the petitioners have approached this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the judgment of the revisional Court on the ground that the disputed land was not subject-matter of the partition suit of the year 1956, hence the claim of the contesting opposite party on the basis of the compromise decree in that suit was wrongly accepted by the revisional Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the disputed plots were not mentioned in the partition suit. Only in the written statement the objector had asserted that the disputed plots were wrongly included in the partition suit in which the defendant had a share. Therefore, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the plots mentioned in the written statement could not be treated as subject-matter of the partition suit because no court-fee was paid regarding the claim of share in the plots mentioned in the written statement.