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 th