Writ Petition No.
The respondents 3 to 7 and one Smt.
I do number know whether Mahadev died during the life time of his father or when he died.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 30.3.1981 passed in revision, the appellants filed Civil Misc.
The last rituals of both the persons were together.
Rojhani died after the death of Ram Subhag, hence succession to Smt.
There was numberdispute between parties that the properties belonged to Ram Subhag.
In the view he took, the revision petition was allowed and the Order dated 2.8.80 passed in the appeal by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, was set aside and the order dated 3.5.1979 of the Consolidation Officer was companyfirmed.
The said appeal was allowed on 2.8.80 and the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside.
Kuber Pandey has stated thus I had number seen Mahadev.
The said property was recorded in his name in Khatauni of 1332 Fasali.
On the other hand, their statements are vague and general.
Rojhani in the year 1966, Mahaveer and Udit became entitled to succession under Section 171 of Uttar Pradesh Jamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1953 for short the Act .
In his statement, Shanker has stated thus I did number see Ram Subhag.
The Deputy Director, on detailed examination of respective companytentions in the light of the material placed on record, came to the companyclusion that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal was number sustainable.
The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3.5.1979 allowed the objections of the Respondents and granted relief.
The Appellant No.
1 himself entered into witness box to support his claim and one Sudendar was also examined as DW 2.
The appellants companytested the claim of Respondents 3 to 7 and Smt.
First of all Ram Subhag died and Mahadev died after him.Rojhani was governed by Section 171 of the Act.
Samundri on the ground that after the death of Smt.
Earlier the Khata of all these were joint.
This time the respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, questioning the validity and companyrectness of the order dated 2.8.80 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Rojhani was the tenure holder of the disputed property she died in the year 1966 and they were entitled to the said property by succession.
Deoria.
In the said proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the respondents examined Shanker and one Kuber Pandey in support of their claim.
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J. Leave granted.
Rojhani was recorded 40 45 years back and I do number know what time has passed away the death of Mahadev.
The Appellants companytended that Mahadev, the husband of Smt.
Rojhani has only stated thus Ram Subhag and Mahadev both died in the same year due to Cholera , Mahadev suffered Cholera first but the old person Ram Subhag died first.
The appellants filed an appeal challenging the said order before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
Rojhani was 70 80 years old at the time of her death.
I do number know whether the name of Mahadev was recorded in the Khata.
22 and 142 of village Kermeni Premwalia, Distt.
Samundri filed objections before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and prayed that the name of the recorded tenure holders be expunged and their names may be recorded companytending that one Smt.
My husband Mahadev died thereafter six months.
Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are the following.
The name of Smt.
I did number see Mahadev also.
The property in dispute relates to Khata Nos.
