A family settlement entered into during consolidation proceedings is valid and binding on the parties, provided that it is acted upon and supported by documentary evidence.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-7-1989 passed by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad and the order dated 24-4-1991 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 110 of 1988 arising out of the suit filed by the petitioners for declaration and partition under S. 229-B and S. 176 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE admitted pedigree between the parties is as under :-

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed suit regarding grove (Khata No. 4) situate in village Thakurdwara. Distt. Moradabad. The case of the petitioners was that the grove was ancestral property. It was situate on their ancestral Sir-Khudkasht land. Pooran Prasad, the ancestors of the parties, was originally recorded as sir-khudkasht holder and after his death his 3 sons namely Ram Chandra, Ram Ballabh Saran and Ram Krishna jointly inherited the property. Ram Chandra died issueless in the year 1892 and his share was succeeded by his two brothers namely Ram Ballabh Saran and Ram Krishna and each of them had 1/2 share in the property in question. The defendants, however, got some forged entry during the consolidation proceedings and when they came to know of it, they filed the suit in the year 1986.

( 4 ) THE respondents 3 to 11 contested the suit. They pleaded that one of the sons of Ram Chandra (one of the sons of Pooran Prasad) during his life-time and he inherited 1/3rd share of Ram Chandra. It was contended that family settlement took place and under the family settlement the land of village Jamnawala was given to the petitioners and the land in dispute which is situate in village Thakurdwara was given to the respondents and in the consolidation proceedings, the applications were moved and such family settlement was accepted and the chaks were carved out accordingly in the year 1967 and since then the parties are in possession of their respective shares and the plaintiffs have no share in the property in question in village Thakurdwara. They further took the plea that suit was barred by Section 49 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and was also barred by limitation.

( 5 ) THE trial Court by judgment dated 10-2-89 partly decreed the suit. He recorded a finding that Ram Chandra had adopted Sheoraj Saran and therefore the plaintiffs had only 1/3rd share in the property. He did not accept the family settlement and the compromise as alleged by the contesting respondents. He held that the entries in the consolidation proceedings were fictitious. He decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have 1/3rd share in the property in question. Against the decision of the trial Court, three appeals were filed. One appeal was filed by the plaintiffs challenging the findings of the trial Court regarding adoption. The contesting respondents filed, appeal challenging the decree passed by the trial Court and the respondent No. 1 who was a transferee from the contesting respondent No. 2, affirmed the finding of the trial Court regarding adoption. He hold that Ram Chandra had adopted Sheoraj Saran. He, further held that the parties had entered into a compromise and the family settlement had taken place and the Asstt. Consolidation Officer accepted that same and the entries were to made accordingly. The entries in the revenue records wore genuine and the suit was barred by S. 49 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. He dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the suit. The petitioners aggrieved against such judgment filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 22-4-1991. The petitioners have approached this Court against these decisions. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the finding regarding the adoption. The trial Court recorded a finding that Ram Chandra had adopted Sh