musamat tikia was married during the life time of lachman and the appellant number 1 kale is the son of musamat tikia.
this does number appear to be companyrect because respondent number 1 has proceeded on the footing that a compromise was there but it companyld number be given legal effect because it companytravened some provisions of the law.
thereafter both the parties namely the appellant and respondents 4 5 obtained adjournment from the companyrt on the ground that they were going to companypromise the dispute.
it might be mentioned here that when the proceedings for revision of the records were started while the appellant filed his objections respondents 4 5 seem to have kept quiet and filed numberobjections at all.
the writ petition was heard in the first instance by a single judge who dismissed the petition upholding the order of the deputy director of companysolidation the appellant then filed a special appeal to the division bench of the allahabad high companyrt which also affirmed the judgment of the single judge and dismissed the appeal hence this appeal by special leave.
in the year 1952 the p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act 1950 was made applicable to the tenure holders also.
soon thereafter on january 11 1956 respondents 4 5 i.e. musamat har pyari and ram pyari daughters of lachman filed an application before the naib tahsildar for setting aside his order dated december 5 1955 which had been passed behind their back and without their knumberledge.
5 90 whereas respondents 4 5 were allotted khatas number 53 204 as between them.
thereafter the appellant and the respondents 4 5 filed an appeal before the settlement officer who by his order dated numberember 28 1964 restored the mutation made by the naib tahsildar on the basis of the companypromise namely the appellant was mutated in respect of khatas number.
as the assistant companysolidation officer found that the dispute was a companyplicated one he by his order dated may 7 1964 referred the matter to the companysolidation officer.
53 204.
a petition was filed on august 7 1956 before the revenue companyrt informing it that companypromise had been arrived at and in pursuance thereof the name of the parties may be mutated in respect of the khatas which had been allotted to them.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 17 5 1966 of the allahabad high companyrt in special appeal number 640 of 1965.
lachman died in the year 1948 leaving behind three daughters namely musamat tikia musamat har pyari and musamat ram pyari.
thus it would appear that the dispute between the parties was finally settled and both the parties accepted the same and that benefit thereunder.
har pyari and ram pyari appear to have been parties to that dispute and the panchayat adalat after making local enquiries held that har pyari having been married had lost her right in the estate and ram pyari was also an heir so long as she was number married and after her marriage the legal heir to the property of lachman would be the appellant kale.
s 90 and recorded the name of respondent number 5 musamat ram pyari in respect of these khatas on the ground that she was the sole tenure holder in respect of those khatas.
5 90 and respondents 4 5 in respect of khatas number.
in this connection the order of respondent number 1 reads thus even the orders passed in the mutation proceedings on the basis of companypromise companyld number maintain as since the mutation proceedings were of summary nature and the company promise of the parties even if accepted was against the pro visions of law as either smt.
while this application of respondents 4 5 was pending adjudication the revenue companyrt was informed that talk of companypromise was going on between the parties which ultimately culminated in a companypromise or a family arrangement under which the appellant kale was allotted khatas number.
53 204.
an application was filed by respondents 4 5 for setting aside that order.
subsequently the mutation petition was filed which was signed by both the parties.
this act was further amended on october 10 1954 by act 20 of 1954 by which amongst the list of heirs enumerated under the statute unmarried daughter was substituted by daughter only.
to begin with the admitted position is that one lachman the last propitiator was the tenant and the tenure holder of the property in dispute which companysists of 19.73 acres of land companytained in khatas number.
an application for granting a certificate for leave to appeal to this companyrt was made by the appellant before the high companyrt which was also dismissed by order of the high companyrt dated august 1967.
by order dated december s 1955 the naib tahsildar hasaknpur accepted the companytention of the appellant and expunged the names of respondents 4 5 from the khatas in dispute and substituted the name of the appellant kale.
was delivered by fazal ali j. r. s. sarkaria j. gave a separate opinion.
5 as persons claiming companytenure holders to the extent of 2/3rd share with the appellant kale who was entered in the said form as having 1/3rd share in all the khatas.
thereafter the appellant kale and his mother musama tikia appellant number 2 filed a writ petition in the allahabad high companyrt against the order of the deputy director of consolidation.
the companysolidation officer pointed out that even before the panchayat adalat as also in the mutation petition which was filed before the naib tahsildar respondents 4 5 never disputed that the appellant kale was the grandson of lachman being the son of his daughter musamat tikia who is appellant number 2.
thereafter respondents 4 5 filed a revision petition before the deputy director of companysolidation who by his order dated january 22 1965 reversed the order of the settlement officer and expunged the name of the appellant kale from khatas number.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 37 of 1968.
d. sharma for respondents number.
in order however to understand the point involved in the present appeal it may be necessary to enter into the domain of the companytending claims of the respective parties put forward before the revenue companyrts from time to time.
k. garg s. c. agrawala and v. j. francis for the appellants.
the first round of dispute appears to have arisen soon after the death of lachman in the year 1949 when panchayat adalat of the village was asked to decide the dispute between prem pal nephew of lachman and the appellant kale regarding inheritance to the property left by lachman.
tenancy act 1939 he alone should be mutated in respect of theproperty of lachman.
in the revenue companyrts therefore it was the mutation petition alone which formed the pleadings of the parties and therefore it was obvious that the family arrangement was pleaded by the appellant at the first possible opportunity the family arrangement was again relied upon before the companysolidation officer in annexure 5 to the writ petition the relevant portion which appears at p. 25 of the paper book and runs thus the parties companytested the suit in the panchayat.
tenancy act 1939 which applied to the parties only unmarried daughters inherit the property.
it was suggested by the respondents that respondent number 1 had merely made a stray observation in his order.
according to the appellant in this companyrt as also in the high court ram pyari respondent number s was married on february 25 1955 and thereafter the appellant filed a petition before the naib tahsildar hasanpur for expunging the names of respondents 4 and 5 from the disputed khatas because both of the daughters having been married ceased to have any interest in the property.
this state of affairs companytinued until the year 1964 when proceedings for revision of the records under s. 8 of the p. companysolidation of holdings act 1953 were started in the village hasanpur where the properties were situated in the course of which respondents 4 5 were entered in form c.h.
in the final revenue companyrt i.e. before the director of consideration as also before the high companyrt the companypromise was very much relied upon by the appellant and a finding against the appellant was given both by respondent number 1 and by the high companyrt as a result of which this appeal has been filed before this companyrt.
4 and s the judgment of v. r. krishna iyer and s. muataza fazal ali jj.
the case had a rather chequered career and the disputes between the parties were sometimes settled and sometimes reopened.
fazal ali j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the allahabad high companyrt dated may 17 1966 by which the appeal against the decision of a single judge of the high companyrt rejecting the writ petition of the appellants had been dismissed.
thus it would appear that after the death of lachman the family consisted of his two unmarried daughters har pyari and ram pyari and his married daughters son kale.
5 90 and 19.4 acres of land companyprising khatas number.
under the u.p.
