AMAR NATH Vs. D D C AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri Rahul Mishra, holding brief of Sri Saroj Yadav, for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2; Sri R.K. Shahi for the respondent no.3 and have perused the record.

(2.) The contesting parties have exchanged their affidavits, therefore, with the consent of the parties, this petition is being decided finally.

(3.) The present petition emanates from a dispute in respect of succession to the interest of deceased tenure-holder Sukhdeo. Three sets of objections were filed under section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short the C.H. Act). One was filed by the third respondent (Bhanu Pratap) claiming himself to be daughter's son of Sukhdeo and legatee under an unregistered Will dated 25.02.1962 executed by Sukhdeo. The second objection was filed by Kamla Devi, mother of third respondent, claiming in the alternative that she be accepted successor of deceased Sukhdeo being his daughter. And the third was filed in respect of a particular plot by one Bholai on the basis of sale deed in respect of which no dispute survives.