QUEENI BARTERJI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R. K. Chaube, Ad-vocat for the contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the learned standing coun sel.

(2.) PRESENT petition arises out of the proceedings under Sections 34/40 of the U. P. Land Re6enue Act, for short the Act, and is directed against the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

(3.) SINCE in both the aforesaid cases the subject-matter of dispute and the parties were the same, therefore, they were con solidated by the order of the Tehsildar dated 17-3-1987. After following the procedure prescribed under the law, affording oppor tunity to the parties to lead evidence and hearing them, the applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Tehsildar vide his order dated 6-8- 1988. It was held that on the basis of the decree passed by the Munsiff court the name of the petitioner No. 2 could not be mutated in the revenue papers as the said decree was already reversed by the appellate court and there was no interim order granted by the High Court in the second appeal filed against the decree passed by the appellate court. The application and the claim of the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Queeni Banerji were rejected on the ground that she being uncle's daughter (Chacheri Bahan) was not one of the heirs and successors of the deceased Majari Christofer. By the same order the name of the respondent No. 3, Maklin Deepak was ordered to be recorded in the revenue papers in place of the deceased Smt. Majari Christofer on the basis of the registered will executed in his favour by Smt. Majari Chris tofer. The petitioner No. 1 challenged the validity of the order dated 6-8-1988 before the appellate court under Section 210 of the Act. However, the appeal filed by her was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 7-7-1990.