CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. D D C JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri R. N. Upadhayay, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri RN. Tripathi appearing for contesting respondent No. 2.

(2.) DURING consolidation procaedings, an objection under Section 9 of the U. P Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') was filed by the petitioners claiming 1/3rd share in the land in dispute. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6-11- 1990 decided the objection. Aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. DURING the pendency of the appeal, the petitioners moved an application seek ing amendment, in the pedigree set out by them before the Consolidation Of ficer. It was stated that name of Ram Swaroop and Mata Pher the two sons of Nayak who was the common ancestor "of the parties were inadvertently left out to be mentioned. In support of the ap plication, the petitioners filed some order passed in suit No. 858 of 1941 and death register of Ram Swaroop and Mata Pher which went to show that they were also sons of Nayak.

(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioners that by inad vertent mistake the name of only four sons of Nayak was mentioned in the pedigree and two were left out. Ques tion of share is a question of law and a person is entitled to get only his lawful share. He cannot be allowed to take ad vantage of bona fide mistake and obtain share in excess to which otherwise, he is legally entitled to.