On companysidering the evidence adduced by the parties the Consolidation Officer held that all the khatas did number belong to a companymon ancestor and that it was number shown that they were acquired for the whole family from the joint family funds by the head of the family so he dismissed the objections on December 23, 1969.
The respondents assailed the validity of that order before the High Court in the writ petition.
On June 4, 1970, he allowed the appeal and set aside the said order of the Consolidation Officer.
The High Court has also numbered that the order of the Deputy Director was based on improper companysideration of evidence and wrong application of well settled principle of law about presumption of jointness in a joint Hindu family and quashed the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation.
Sheo Devi A3 Jagannath R3 A represents appellant and R represents respondent In the objections filed by them, the respondents claimed that they and the appellants are the members of Joint Hindu family and that the entries in the names of appellants are in representative capacity for all the members of the joint family and, therefore, their names should also be recorded as the companysharers along with the names of the appellants.
They are Khata Nos.
The lis has its origin in the objections filed by the successors of Sheetal Prasad, the respondents, under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 for short, the Consolidation Act at the time of Partal against the successors of Bala Prasad and Sadhau, the appellants, who were recorded as Khatedars of khatas in dispute.
The respondents herein carried the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
The appellants again carried the matter in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who set aside the order of the Settlement Officer holding that the khatas in question are held by the appellants individually and allowed the revision on April 7, 1975.
By the impugned order the High Court quashed the said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated April 7, 1975 and restored the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated September 22, 1973.
Parmeshwar Chandrika Smt.
Sadhau Sheetal Pd.
By order dated September 22, 1973, the Settlement Officer held that the khatas in question were joint Hindu family property and all the parties were companysharers who were entitled to 1/6th share each.
2,11,21,23 which, companyprise of bhumidhari lands, khata Nos.
To appreciate the scope of the companytroversy and the facts giving rise to it, it would be helpful to numberice the genealogy of the family of the parties PEDIGREE Matai Manni Gokul died issueless Bala Pd.
The appellants are thus before us in appeal.
Sheoraja died died issueless issueless Gayadin Brindaban Mathura Gaya Hanuman Bhikhari A1 A2 A4 A5 R1 Smt.
Sukhdei R2 Smt.
This claim was companytested by the appellants denying existence of joint family and asserting that they are holding the khatas in their individual capacity.
But the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by the appellants and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on July 6, 1971.
28,39 which companysist of sirdari lands of village Akathi and khata No.8 which is a bhumidhari land of village Chainpur.
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. This appeal, by special leave, is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1685 of 1975 dated October 20, 1989.
