1 and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 49 of the Act.
1 companyld claim numberinterest in the holdings as he is number a member of the family.
In the instant case the companysolida tion proceedings under the Act were taken during the period 1969 to 1971 and the suit was filed in 1973.
The said judgment and decree of the Munsiff Hawaii was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Etawah by judgment dated January 17, 1975.
The appellant companytested the said claims and claimed that lands in Khata No.
The objections were companysidered by the Consolidation Officer, who, by order dated August 31, 1970, held that respondent No.
The said suit was companytested by respondent No.
Kailasho Devi, respondent No.
Respondent No.
The Deputy Director allowed the revision of respondent No.
73 were entered in the name of Nanha alone and on his death the same were entered in the name of the appel lant.
73 were acquired by Nanha in his individual capacity and number on behalf of his family.
The second Appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment was dismissed in limine by the High Court by the judgment under appeal.
73 the Deputy Director held that the name of Nanha was entered only in a representative capacity and that the branches of Manna, Chhota and Ram Sahai also had a share in these plots and that the respond ents had acquired equal shares along with the appellant in these plots and their names may also be recorded over the same.
2 and 3 filed appeals against the said order of the Consolidation Officer.
2 and 3 filed objections claiming shares in the lands in Khata No.
The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation , by Order dated February 8, 1971, allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed that Khata No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
1 is number the son of Chhota but is the son of one Heera who was a resident of a different village.
1 and 2 are entitled to one third share each in the lands included in this Khata.
3 is the widow of Ram Sahai.
73 except plots Nos.
The said revisions were decided by the Deputy Director of Consolida tion by his Order dated May 13, 1971.
2 and 3 were entered.
He gave half share to the appellant and one fourth share each to respondents Nos.
2 and since respondent No.
The dispute in the appeal relates to sirdari holdings in Khata No.
The respondents went in revision against the said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer.
73 the Deputy Director disallowed the claim of the respondents in respect of plots Nos.
Respondent No.
1 in full and held that he has got a share in Khata No.
1 and the said land was number the ancestral acquisition number Nanha had acquired it in a repre sentative capacity.
Lands in Khata No.
72 along with the appellant and respondent No.
The appellant as well as respondents Nos.
1, claims to be the son of Chhota which is disputed by the appellant.
The lands in Khata No.
3 sold her shares in these lands.
72 the remaining three branches namely the appellant and respondents Nos.
As regards lands in Khata No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Assistant Settlement Officer, howev er, agreed with the findings of the Consolidation Officer that respondent No.
73 will be companytinued in the name of the appellant alone inasmuch as the lands of the said Khata were acquired by Nanha between 1927 and 193 1 before the birth of respondent No.
1 is the son of Heera alias Chhota and belongs to the family to which the appellant and respondent No.
1 filed objections to the entries and claimed one fourth share in the holdings in both the Khatas on the basis that he is the son of Chhota and that the said lands belonged to the joint Hindu family companysisting of the sons of Tej Ram.
734 of 1975.
3 has already sold her share of Khata No.
1 is the son of Heera alias Chhota.
The application filed by the appellant for grant of certificate of fitness to appeal to this Court under Article 133 of the Constitu tion was also rejected by the High Court by its order dated November 9, 1972.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the said decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the said writ petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court by order dated July 23, 1971.
K. Mehta, Ms. Mona Mehta and S.K. Bagga NP for the Appellant.
72 and 73 in village Sambhalpur Sheoli in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Respondents Nos.
The appellant further claimed that respondent No.
The case of the appellant was that respondent No.
5 of 1954 hereinafter referred to as the Act companymenced in Village Sambhalpur Sheoli in the year 1969.
He raised a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Act.
72 were originally entered in the names of Nanha, Manna and Ram Sahai in the revenue records and on their deaths the names of the appellant and respondents Nos.
Respondent No.
Mulle had a son Nokhey who died in 1953 without any issue.
Appel lant Sita Ram is the son of Nanha.
K. Bajaj and Mrs. Rani Chhabra NP for the Respondents.
1 and 2 in all the plots of the Khata No.
73 on the ground that the said holding was jointly acquired by Nanha and his brothers, Manna and Ram Sahai, and the name of Nanha was recorded in a representative charac ter.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allaha bad dated April 18, 1975, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellant.
The appellant, thereafter, filed the civil suit giving rise to this appeal on January 25, 1973 for a declaration that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated May 13, 1971, is without jurisdiction.
All of them have died.
But with regard to other plots of Khata No.
The Munsiff Hawaii, Kanpur, by judgment dated August 16, 1974 decided the said preliminary objection in favour of respondent No.
140, 141,142 and 143.
Teja, the companymon ancestor, had five sons Nanha, Mulle, Manna, Chhota and Ram Sahai.
2 belong.
Chhota Bhondey respondent No.
140, 141, 142/2, 142/3 and 143/3 which were given to the appellant exclusive ly.
1811 of 1975.
2 Soney Lal is the son of Manna.
