From the Judgment and decree dated 13 9 1967 of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No.
However, in the view we take of the decision of the High Court that it is number a judgment of affirmance this question does number arise.
2334 of 1963, H. Dhebur, D. V. Desai and P. C. Kapur for the appellant.
N. Dixit, Uma Mehta, S. Bagga and Raj Kumar Mehta, for the Respondent.
97 but failed in respect of the either plots.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The 1st respondent is her husbands brother.
One of the questions on which the decision of this question depends is whether the Deputy Director, Consolidation as well as the other two officers exercising power under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 are Courts.
She claimed certain other plots on the ground that they were acquired by Bhojraj and therefore it was joint Hindu family property and she was entitled to inherit those shares also as a companytenant along with 1st respondent.
She succeeded in respect of the 11 plots in Khata No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. The appellants is the widow of one Gover dhandass.
Against the order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation she filed a petition before the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226.
97 as land in which she was entitled to be a joint tenant along with the 1st respondent.
A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that the certificate granted was number valid because the judgment of the High Court was one affirming the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation.
The appellant claimed 11 plots in Khata No.
Goverdhandass and the 1st respondent are the sons of one Bhojraj.
The matter first came up before the Consolidation Officer and thereafter on appeal before the Settlement Officer and finally before the Deputy Director, Consolidation in revision.
1641 of 1969.
