Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition arises out of consolidation proceedings and involves question of title.

3. There were two brothers Sheobhikh and Sheoratan. Petitioner No. 1 and 2 are sons of Beni and petitioners 3 to 5 are sons of Bhagwandin. Beni and Bhagwandin were sons of Sheoratan. Contesting respondents are descendants of Sheobhikh. Respondent No. 3 Ram Sumer and Respondent No. 7 Balbhadra are sons of Sheobhikh. The other respondents i.e. respondents 4 to 6 are sons of Gayadin who was third son of Sheobhikh.

4. Dispute relates to Khata No. 92 containing plot Nos. 343, 346/1 and 346/2. In the basic year (i.e. the year immediately preceding start of consolidation operation in the area in question) the name of Ram Sumer, respondent No. 3 was recorded as Sirdar of the land in dispute. Petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 filed objections before CO under Section 9(2) of U.P C.H Act contending therein that Sheobhikh and Sheoratan were brothers hence property recorded in the name of Sheobhikh was joint even though the name of Sheoratan and his descendants were never recorded in the revenue records. They claimed co-tenancy on the basis of pedigree given by them and alleged joint tenancy of Sheobhikh and Sheoratan. Respondent No. 4 to 7 could very well file separate objection contending that even if Sheobhikh was exclusive tenure holder, their names should be entered in the revenue records as they were his descendants. Objections before Consolidation Officer (CO) Rajapur, Allahabad were registered as case No. 146 Gayadin V. Ram Sumer. CO accepted the objections and directed recording of names of petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 also along with the name of respondent No. 3. CO decided the matter on 13.9.1972. Against the said judgment respondent No. 3 filed appeal No. 777 of 1974. Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation (ASOC), Allahabad allowed the appeal in part on 21.12.1974. ASOC directed recording of the names of respondents 4 to 7 along with the name of respondent No. 3 in the revenue records. Claims of petitioners were rejected and order in that regard passed by CO was set-aside. Against the said judgment and order petitioners filed revision No. 19/121/44 Jagdeo and others v. Ram Sumer and others. Deputy Director of Consolidation (DDC) Allahabad dismissed the revision on 19.6.1976, hence this writ petition.

5. ASOC held that right from 1320 Fasli (1912-1913 A.D) name of Sheobhikh was recorded in the revenue records and name of Sheoratan was never recorded in the revenue records. The claim of descendants of Sheoratan was barred on the principle of estoppel. For 50 years, neither the petitioners nor their ancestors took any steps for getting their names recorded in the revenue records. Even at the time of Zarnindari Abolition they did not raise any objections.

6. It was also argued before the Courts below as well as this Court on behalf of the petitioner that a judgment in respect of some other properties in between the same parties operates as res judicata. The other property is situate in village Ramnathpur. However in respect of the land situate in Ramnathpur in the basic year, the names of descendants of both Sheobhikh as well as Sheoratan were recorded in the revenue records. In the said case petitioners asserted that the name of Ram Sumer should be deleted from the revenue records. The said claim was rejected. AS.OC and DDC rightly held that the said judgment does not operate as res judicata.

7. In Mangaroo v. Ram Sumer, Writ Petition No. 2013 of 1973 decided on 26.5.2006, I have held as follows :

“In consolidation matters, often it happens that people start challenging revenue entries standing for more than half, half or quarter century. The presumption attached with the correctness of revenue entries particularly if they are continuing for a very long time and since before Zarnindari Abolition can not be lightly taken to be rebutted. Oral evidence of t