PRABHU SINGH Vs. DY D C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAJA Singh had two sons Mata Din Singh and Ram Din Singh who were entered as coproprietors with one half in the khewat to which land of khata No. 850 belonged. Petitioners are the sons of Ram Din Singh whereas opposite parties are sons of Mata Din Singh. In consolidation proceedings opposite parties filed an objection claiming that the land of khata No. 850 was their exclusive khudkasht. The objection was rejected by the Consolidation Officer but the order was set aside in appeal. The appellate authority found that the separation in the family took place some time in 1331 F and the khudkasht of this khata was acquired between 1333 F and 1334 F. The name of the Petitioners were never recorded prior to the date of vesting. It was added for the first time in 1362 F. The finding recorded by the consolidation authorities have not been challenged nor could they be challenged as they are based on consideration of evidence on record. It was however argued by the learned Counsel for Petitioner that they being admittedly co -proprietors with the opposite parties it shall be deemed that they were co -khudkasht holders. In support of this argument the learned Counsel has relied on Kailash Rai v. Jai Jai Ram : AIR 1973 SC 893. He has laid great emphasis on para 9 of the judgment and has urged that the following observation:

(2.) FROM the facts in Kailash Rai's case it is clear that mother of Kailash Rai had obtained a decree in 1945 and her right and title was declared and it was held that she was entitled to the property inherited from her father. In pursuance of the decree, possession was also obtained. After coming into force of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act Kailash Rai filed a suit for division of holding which was resisted and Jai Jai Ram and others claimed to be sole bhumidhars. It is thus clear that Kailash Rai's ancestor was held to be cosharer along with Jai Jai Ram and others. Once the title was established his claim could not be resisted on the ground that it was cultivated exclusively by Jai Jai Ram. It was in this context that the Supreme Court held:

(3.) THE result is that the petition fails and is dismissed. But the parties shall bear their own costs.