JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J. : — This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated April 18, 1975, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellant.

2. Teja, the common ancestor, had five sons : Nanha, Mulle, Manna, Chhota and Ram Sahai. All of them have died. Appellant Sita Ram is the son of Nanha. Mulle had a son Nokhey who died in 1953 without any issue. Respondent No. 2 Soney Lal is the son of Manna. Smt. Kailasho Devi, respondent No. 3 is the widow of Ram Sahai. Chhota Bhondey respondent No. 1, claims to be the son of Chhota which is disputed by the appellant. The dispute in the appeal relates to sirdari holdings in Khata Nos. 72 and 73 in village Sambhalpur Sheoli in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Lands in Khata No. 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. 2 and. 3 were entered. Respondent No. 3 sold her shares in these lands. The lands in Khata No. 73 were entered in the name of Nanha alone and on his death the same were entered in the name of the appellant. Consolidation proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the Act commenced in Village Sambhalpur Sheoli in the year 1969. Respondent No. 1 filed objections to the entries and claimed one fourth share in the holdings in both the Khatas on the basis that Director allowed the revision of respondent he is the son of Chhota and that the said lands belonged to the joint Hindu family consisting of the sons of Tej Ram. Respondents Nos 2 and 3 filed objections claiming shares in the lands in 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 character. The appellant contested the said claims and claimed that lands in Khata No. 73 were acquired by Nanha in his individual capacity and not on behalf of his family. The appellant further claimed that respondent No. 1 could claim no interest in the holdings as he is not a member of the family. The case- of the appellant was that respondent No. 1 is not the son of Chhota but is the son of one Heera who was a resident of a different village. The objections were considered by the Consolidation Officer, who, by order dated August 31, 1970, held that respondent No. 1 is the son of Heera alias Chhota. He gave half share to the appellant and one fourth share each to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in all the plots of the Khata -No. 73 except plots Nos. 140, 141, 142/ 2, 142/3 and 143/3 which were given to the appellant exclusively. The appellant as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed appeals against the said order of the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), by Order dated February 8, 1971, allowed the appeal of the appellant and directed that Khata No. 73 will be continued in the name of the appellant alone in as much as the lands of the said Khata were acquired by Nanha between 1927 and 1931 before the birth of respondent No. 1 and the said land was not the ancestral acquisition nor Nanha had acquired it in a representative capacity. The Assistant Settlement Officer, however agreed with the findings of the Consolidation Officer that respondent No. 1 is the son of Heera alias Chhota and belongs to the family to which the appellant and respondent No. 2 belong. The respondents went in revision against the said order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The said revisions were decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his Order dated May 13, 1971. The Deputy Director allowed the revision of respondent No. 1 in full and held that he has got a share in Khata No. 72 along with the appellant and respondent No. 2 and since respondent No. 3 has already sold her share of Khata No. 72 the remaining three branches namely the appellant a