Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Original Suit No. 458/1997, Nagendra Singh and others v. Indra Singh and others, was filed for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed. By the judgment dated 22.2.2011 of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar this suit was partly decreed for the cancellation of 3/4th share of property sold by sale-deed in question. Against the said judgment of trial Court, Civil Appeal No. 21/2011, Rajendra Kumar and another v. Nagendra Singh and others was preferred, which was allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Muzaffar Nagar on 21.9.2015. By this judgment the judgment dated 22.2.2011 of trial Court was set aside and original suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by this judgment of first appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit.

2. Plaint case in brief was that disputed agricultural property was ancestral property of the parties, but during consolidation proceedings the parties had entered into compromise and name of Defendant No. 1 Indra Singh was recorded on it as manager; therefore later on the name of Defendant No. 1 was entered on disputed property as Bhumidhar. But, in fact, the Defendant No. 1 had only 1/4th share in said property and had no right to sell the whole property. On 29.3.1988, Defendant No. 1 had connived with other defendants No. 3 to 5 and executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3, for which plaintiffs had never consented. Plaintiff had filed suit for cancellation of said registered sale-deed executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 on the ground that Defendant No. 1 had only 1/4th share in it, and had no right to execute sale-deed of whole of the land, but he had executed sale-deed without consent of the parties, and the said sale-deed was based on fraud and was a void document.

3. Defendant No. 1 had filed written-statement, by which he had not denied the plaint averment and pleaded that although disputed property was ancestral one but the parties had entered into a family arrangement, by which Defendant No. 1 had got management rights of disputed property and his name was entered on it in revenue records. He had executed registered sale-deed dated 29.3.1988 properly but cheque of its consideration was dishonoured. Therefore, sale-deed is liable to be cancelled.

4. Defendants No. 2 and 3 had denied the plaint averments and pleaded in their written-statements that disputed property was in ownership of Defendant No. 1, who had sold it to defendants No. 2 and 3 for consideration, without any fraud. But later on plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 had connived and filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed, which is liable to be dismissed.

5. After framing issues, accepting adduced evidences and hearing the arguments, the trial Court had passed judgment dated 22.2.2011, in which it had held that since consolidation officer had recorded name of Defendant No. 1 on the basis of his possession and he is merely a co-sharer of disputed agricultural property, therefore, the Defendant No. 1 was owner of only 1/4th share of disputed agricultural land. So his sale-deed is valid for 1/4th share, and is liable to be cancelled for remaining 3/4th share. On this ground, trial Court had cancelled sale-deed in question for 3/4th share of sold property.

6. These facts, circumstances, and legal position were considered by first appellate Court, which had held that after consolidation proceedings name of Defendant No. 1 was recorded. Had he not been owner of whole share of disputed property, then plaintiffs would have objected his sole ownership during consolidation proceedings, which they had not done. First appellate Court had also held that after consolidation, the revenue records were prepared; and the revenue Court had held the Defendant No. 1 to be the owner of whole property, but it was not objected by plaintiffs. These facts proved that Defendant No. 1 had been