The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper admission of additional evidence and the exemption of compromise decrees from registration under the Registration Act, 1908.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 2.1.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria whereby he allowed the revision filed by the respondents nos.2 to 4 and after setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 5.2.1973 maintained the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 9.10.1972, rejecting the objections of the petitioners.

2. The dispute relates to the land comprised in Khata No.6 and Khata No.82 of Village Badhia Hardo, Tappa Dond, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, District Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute).

3. In the basic year records the names of Kashi, Bali Ram and Udai Bhan sons of Ram Bachan Singh (respondent nos.2 to 4) were recorded. The petitioners filed objections claiming co-tenancy rights in the land in dispute of the two khatas and subsequently by way of amendment they also claimed exclusive rights over certain plots of the said khatas. The objections were based upon a compromise decree dated 17.6.1969 in a revenue suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Z.A. Act), registered as Case No.316 of 1969, Kedar Singh vs. Kashi and others. According to the petitioners the said compromise decree dated 17.6.1969, having attained finality between the parties, was binding on the parties and under the said compromise the petitioners having been given co-tenancy rights and also exclusive rights over the plots claimed by them, the entries of the basic year should be corrected as per the compromise decree. These objections were registered as Case Nos.2045 and 2046, Saudagar Singh vs. Kashi and others, under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the C.H. Act). The respondent nos.2 to 4 filed their written statement denying the claim of the petitioners. According to the respondents no compromise was ever executed by them in Case No.316 of 1969.

4. Both parties led evidence in support of their respective arguments. The Consolidation Officer vide judgment and order dated 9.10.1972 inter alia recorded the following findings:

The petitioners had failed to establish the compromise; the alleged compromise deed did not record the statement that the respondents had admitted the petitioners to be their co-tenants; the record of the alleged compromise of the other villages had not been produced.

Accordingly the Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners and maintained the basic year's entries.

5. The petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal No.129, Saudagar Singh and others vs. Kashi Singh and others. Before the Settlement Officer Consolidation the petitioners filed papers relating to compromise entered between the parties in other two villages, passed in Case Nos.317 and 56. Further the respondents summoned the original file of Case No.316 of 1969 which was with regard to the village in dispute. The Settlement Officer Consolidation considering the entire material on record and also the conduct of the respondents, recorded the following findings :

It discarded the reasoning of the Consolidation Officer that as the petitioners had not got the original file summoned therefore the compromise could not be relied upon for the reason that the petitioners had filed certified copies of the compromise deed as also the order dated 17.6.1969 accepting the said compromise as such burden would have shifted on the respondents to call for the original file, denying their signatures on the compromise and proving that the signatures were not theirs on the compromise; it further recorded that there had been two other revenue suits being Revenue Suit Nos.325 and 56 with regard to the property situate in two other villages in between the parties in which compromise had been arrived at