Thus, issue number 3 was decided against the writ petitioners leading to rejection of their objection on 1.12.2012.
Raj Nath Dubey petitioner 1 filed an objection registered as Case No.
The previous judgment on this legal issue was disputed by the writ petitioners.
In other words, the writ petitioners accepted the findings of fact in respect of Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath being the illegitimate sons of Kanhai but disputed the other finding that in law such illegitimate sons cannot inherit the property of their father.
The impleadment application moved by Amar Nath Dubey was allowed.
The Consolidation Officer numbericed the earlier petition filed in the year 1966 in respect of land of another village, Chak Nuruddinpur alias Nagdilpur between the same parties that had been decided against the writ petitioners by holding that Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath were illegitimate sons of Kanhai and number entitled to inherit his share because Kanhai was a Brahmin Hindu.
The appeal as well as revision petition preferred by the writ petitioners did number find favour in the light of the findings in the judgments rendered in the earlier proceedings that Kanhai was unmarried Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath were his illegitimate sons from Smt.
The appellate order dated 6.3.2013 and revisional order dated 23.5.2013 along with the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 1.12.2012 which were under challenge before the Writ Court were scrutinized by the Writ Court with care in the light of submissions advanced by the rival parties.
It was also held that the respondents were the heirs of Kanhai.
He had also filed an objection in respect of the disputed land, before Assistant Consolidation Officer but the same was misplaced as such he may be impleaded as an objector in the objection of Raj Nath Dubey.
The respondents are sons grandsons of Bechai and the petitioners are sons of Kanhai as such they have 1/2 share in the land in dispute.
The relevant facts necessary for understanding the subject matter of the dispute between the parties including the main issue, of res judicata are clear from the facts numbered by the High Court in paragraph 3 and 4 of the impugned judgment.
The petitioners were number the sons of Kanhai.
They earlier filed an objection during companysolidation, in respect of the land of village Chak Nuruddinpur alias Nagdilpur, pargana Sikandara, district Allahabad, in which it has been held that Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath were born to Smt.
Assistant Consolidation Officer, by order dated 22.02.2001, referred the dispute to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits.
The judgments of companysolidation authorities in the previous proceedings operate as res judicata between the parties and the objection of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
The respondents companytested the objection on the grounds that Kanhai son of Kishun was unmarried and died issueless.
The companysolidation was started in the year 2000, in the village.
They are as follows The dispute relates to the land of khatas 1, 3, 4 and 5 of village Sarai Aziz, talluka Harikishun, tahsil Phoolpur, district Allahabad, which were recorded in the names of the respondents, in basic companysolidation record.
Issue No.
46506 of 2013 and the same has been allowed by the judgment and order under appeal dated 8.11.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
It has been stated by the petitioner that the land in dispute was the property of Kishun, who had five sons namely, Bechai, Kanhai, Bindra, Pancham and Sheetal.
His share in the land in dispute was inherited by them, who are sons grand sons of Bechai, his brother.
18/19 for recording his name over 1/2 share of the disputed land, along with the respondents.
Ram Pyari and hence were number his heirs.
Later on, Amar Nath Dubey petitioner 2 filed an application dated 03.03.2001, alleging therein that his father Kanhai had three sons namely Jagannath, Amar Nath and Raj Nath, who jointly inherited Kanhai.
3 was framed as to Whether the objection of the petitioners, claiming share of Kanhai, alleging themselves as his sons, is barred by res judicata?
It was found that the earlier judgment had become final at the revisional stage and hence it would operate as res judicata against the writ petitioners whose claim of being heirs of Kanhai had been decided against them in the previous proceeding.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Consolidation Officer, framed issues on 30.04.2005.
Ram Pyari due to her illegitimate relations with Kanhai and they being illegitimate sons, number entitled to inherit Kanhai.
Bindra, Pancham and Sheetal died issueless and the properties of Kishun was inherited by Bechai and Kanhai alone.
The issue number 3, as numbericed above by the High Court, was raised by the respondents before the High Court who are appellants herein.
The stand of the writ petitioners in companyrse of arguments was that the judgments rendered in the previous proceedings would operate as res judicata in respect of issues of facts alone but number in respect of a pure issue of law as to whether as illegitimate sons of a Brahmin a person was entitled to inherit the property of his father or number.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. The appellants were successful before all the Consolidation Authorities, the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation whose orders passed in title proceedings, under P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act were challenged by the number official respondents writ petitioners by preferring Writ B No.
