ASHOK KUMAR Vs. GAYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30th September, 1970 contained in Annexure 5.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that between the opposite parties and father of the petitioners, who is now dead, the dispute related to plots nos. 134 and 158. The basic year entry was recorded in the name of Chhotey Lal. On publication of record opposite parties 1 to 3, namely Gaya Lal, Sobran and Sudarshan who were sons of Brij Nath filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights. It may be mentioned that there is no dispute between the parties with respect to the pedigree which is given out as under:-

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the orders passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the finding recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation is not only cryptic and arbitrary but is based altogether on no evidence. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, tried to justify the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consoli dation to the effect that at the time of the death of Gauri, Baij Nath was alive. It may be mentioned that the Deputy Director of Consoli dation has not recorded a positive finding but has contented by saying that at the time of the death of Gauri, Baij Nath and Kallu should be taken as alive. The exact words are, "Gauri ke mirtu ke badd dono ko he jivat mana jana chaiye."