CHATTAR SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 27-4-1974 and 15-4-1974, by which the review petition and the second appeal, filed by the Petitioners were dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are-that the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) belong to a Hindu family. During the consolidation of holdings proceedings, in the basic year khatauoi, some of the khatas were recorded jointly in the name of both the parties, some khatas were exclusively recorded in the name of the Petitioners and some of the khatas were exclusively recorded in the name of the Respondent, but according to the Petitioners, their father was entitled to a land of total valuation of Rs. 142-78 and the Respondent was entitled to a land of total valuation of Rs. 129.17, as determined during the consolidation operation. Before the close of the consolidation of holding operation, at the request of both the parties, all the aforesaid khatas were amalgamated. After sometime, in 1971, the Respondent filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z. A. & L. R. Act for division of holdings. The Respondent claimed 1/2 share in the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the Petitioners on the allegations that at the time of amalgamation, there was no prior condition that the share of the parties will be half and half in the amalgamated khatas. Therefore, the Respondent is entitled only to the land, which will be equal to land of total valuation of Rs. 129-17 and the Petitioners are entitled to the land of total valuation of Rs. 142.78. The Respondent is not entitled for half share, as claimed by him. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent, declaring his share to the extent of half in the land-in-dispute. The Petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the trial court, which was dismissed by the Addl. Commissioner. A second appeal was filed by the Petitioner, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The Petitioners filed a review petition, which too was dismissed. The Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders before this Court.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that when the parties amalgamated their khatas without any condition or defining any share, the original share of the parties will continue, whereas the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that when at the time of amalgamation of the khatas of the parties, there was no condition regarding share, the Respondent will have half and the Petitioner will have half share in the land in dispute.