JUDGMENT :

V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the outcome of the proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. Since the litigation in which the parties are involved, is nearly a century old, it may be necessary to begin the narration with a genealogy tree of the family. The common ancestor of both the parties was one Gajadhar Misra. He had three sons by name Sita Ram, Ramesar and Jagesar. Sita Ram died issueless. Ramesar had a son by name Bhagauti. This Bhagauti had two sons by name Jangi and Triloki.

4. Jagesar had three sons by name Basdeo, Sarju and Shabhu. Each of them had his own lineage.

5. The genealogy tree of the family is as follows:-

6. In the year 1928, Bhagauti filed a suit for partition, in suit No.934 of 1928. When an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was raised, the plaint was returned for presentation to the proper Court. Accordingly, it was presented to the Additional Civil Court and numbered as Suit No.119 of 1929.

7. By consent of parties, the dispute was referred to arbitration by elders and the