Thereafter, the appellants filed a suit for declaration that Smt Phoola having only a limited interest in the said property companyld number have transferred the same in favour of the respondents.
The said Phoola executed sale deeds in favour of the respondents on April 6, 1956 in respect of the lands in question.
A dispute arose in the family and a companypromise was entered into on February 8, 1932 in which it was agreed that Smt.
Phoola died in a state of jointness in the year 1911.
She died in the year 1966.
The appeal filed on behalf of the appellants before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was also dismissed with the same finding.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court.
That suit abated in view of issuance of the numberification under the provisions of U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act.
However, on revision application being filed on behalf of the appellants, the Deputy Director, Consolidation set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer Consolidation .
Phoola companytinued to be the member of the joint family along with other brothers of her husband.
Thereafter, the same question as to whether the transfer companyld have been made or number by Smt.
The Consolidation Officer upheld the right of Smt.
One Sehti, the husband of Smt.
Her name was also mutated in revenue records.
Phoola who was the widow in the family should be given some lands for maintenance.
Phoola in favour of the respondents was raised before the Consolidation Officer.
The said Smt.
Phoola to transfer the lands in question.
