JUDGMENT

DUTT, J. :— These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. By the said judgment the learned Judge set aside the order of the District Judge, Meerut, passed by him on appeal under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, upholding the order of the First Civil Judge, Meerut, and the Award of the Arbitrator made under section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act.

2. One Kurey was the owner of the zamindari property in Khewats Nos. 23 and 34 and also in Khewat No. 2, comprising the disputed plots of land in village Daha. On his death, the zamindari property devolved upon his daughter, Sona Devi. By a registered deed of sale dated December 21, 1935, Sona Devi sold the zamindari property to one Hoshiara, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, and also to one Abhey Ram. Out of the consideration of Rs. 3,150/-, Sona Devi was paid only Rs. 1,300/- in cash before the Sub-Registrar and the balance of the consideration money was kept in deposit with the purchasers for payment under three usufructuary mortgage deeds executed by Kurey in favour of some of his creditors. Sona Devi had no son when she executed the sale deed, but subsequently three sons, namely, the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were born to her. She died in 1944 leaving behind her the said respondents who were all minors at the time of her death.

3. The respondents Nos. 3 to 5, the sons of Sona Devi, filed a suit being Suit No. 1503 of 1950 in the Court of the Munsif, Meerut against the appellants and others for a declaration that Sona Devi had only a life interest in the Zamindari property purported to have been transferred by her by the sale deed dated December 21, 1935, and that the transfer not having been supported by any legal necessity was not binding upon the respondents. The respondents also prayed for recovery of possession of the property and for mesne profits.

4. The learned Munsif by his judgment dated January 18, 1953 decreed the suit. Both the parties preferred appeals against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. During the pendency of the appeals, village Daha, in which the disputed land is situate, was notified for consolidation operations under the Consolidation Act. In view of section 5 of the Consolidation Act, all further proceedings of the said appeals were stayed.

5. In the consolidation proceedings that were started in the village, the names of the appellants were recorded in the revenue papers as bhumidhars in respect of the disputed land. The respondents filed objections under section 12 of the Consolidation Act, as it stood at the relevant time in November, 1956. As the objections raised questions of tide regarding the disputed land, the Consolidation Officer referred the matter under sub-sec. (4) of S. 12 to the statutory Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator came to the findings that Sona Devi had only a life interest in the disputed land, that the sale deed executed by her on December 21, 1935 was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the estate of her deceased father. that the transfer of the disputed land by the said sale deed was not binding on the respondents, the sons of Sona Devi, and that, accordingly, the said respondents were entitled to recover possession of the disputed land purported to have been transferred by the said sale deed. In view of the above findings, the learned Arbitrator made an Award in favour of the respondents.

6. The appellants filed two petitions of objection to the Award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act which were dismissed by the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, by his order dated November 8, 1967.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned First Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing the petitions of objection, the appellants filed two appeals to the Additional District Judge, Meerut, under S. 39 of the Arbitration