A compromise entered into during mutation proceedings may be treated as a family settlement conferring a right of co-tenancy upon a person who has been in possession as a co-tenant and exercising all the powers and rights of a co-tenant for a long period of time.

This is a writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitu tion of India praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-5-74 and 26-3-75 passed by respondents 1 and 2.

2. There is an unless disputed. pedigree given in the judgment of the Consolida tion Officer, Varanasi, showing that Gokul had four son, namely, Budhan, Ram Das, Banphal and Faiku. For the purpose of this litigation, Budhan and Faiku are not importent. Ram Das has a son Ram Naresh, now respondent No. 3. Budhans son, Dharam Deo. Ram Chandra and Rajendra are the petitioners in this case. Consolidation proceedings started some time in 1970-71 when Budhan was very much alive. In the basic year, the name of Ram Naresh was recorded. Dharam Deo, Rajendra and Ram Chandra filed their objection under Section 9-A (2) of U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act They claimed the property as the sole property of Bud han inherited by them. Not only this, another plank which was developed later on was that Gokul had no son of the name of Ram Naresh. Meaning thereby, that Ram Naresh was totally foreign to this family :

3. In his reply, Ram Naresh said that he was a co-tenant of the disputed proper ty. He relied upon a compromise entered into by Budhan with him in mutation proceedings on 28-4-54, in which Budhan had admitted Ram Naresh as a co-tenant and his interest to be 1/2 in the disputed property.

4. Before the learned Consolidation Officer, Ram Naresh filed this document of compromise, consequential - mutation order, entries in Khatauni 1363 Fasli on wards and Khasra, apart from revenue receipts, irrigation slips etc.

5. After appraisal of entire evidence, the learned Consolidation Officer uphold the compromise as regards its factum. He further found that Ram Naresh was member of this family. However, he concluded that this compromise was valid in respect of Plot No. 113 with an area of 1. 87 acres only. Regarding other plots in this Khata, he found that they did not exist in the original compromise initially and were developed later on. Thus, the objection of the petitioners was partially allowed and so was the case with Ram Naresh as well.

6, Both the sides felt aggrieved and filed appeals before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who decided the appeals by his judgment dated 15-1-75. He also did not dispute the existence and factum of the compromise in respect of all the plots as such but he said that since it was a compromise entered into between the parties in a mutation proceedings, therefore, it had no legal value. Consequently he allowed the petitioner s appeal into to and rejected the appeal of Ram Naresh.

7, Ram Naresh felt aggrieved against this order of the Settlement Officer, Con solidation and Consolidation Officer and filed a revision No. 3024 before the learned D. D. C. , who decided the matter by his judgment dated 25-6-75. He found that the compromise was in respect of all the plots in dispute. Ram Naresh was a member of this family and she compromise was acted upon. Ram Nareshs name has been entered into the papers ever since 1362 Fasli onwards and he has been paying revenue as well as irrigation dues. Consequently, he upheld the case of Ram Naresh in respect of the entire disputed property and rejected the objection of the petitioners.

8, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at a stretch and gone through the record, I find that there is absolutely no force in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.

10. The fact that a compromise was entered into between Budhan, the father of the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 Ram Naresh as early as on 28. 4, 54, now stands concluded by the concurrent findings

of fact by almost all the three courts. Not only this, in the objection filed under Section 9-A (2) of the aforesaid Act by the petitioners before the- learned Consolidation Officer, the factum of compromise had not been challenged.