The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of conditional gifts and transferable rights under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava Bakshi, for the petitioner and Sri D.P. Gupta, for the contesting respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 21.07.2003 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.07.2006, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to plot 489 (area 2.36 acre) of village Dariyapur, pargana Lahar, district Sitapur. In basic consolidation year, land in dispute was recorded in the name of Smt. Prem Kali (the petitioner), Smt. Manno Devi and Ghan Shyam (respondents-4 and 5) in khata 145. Ramesh Chandra (respondent-3) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 69/57/53/49) under Section 9-A of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of ½ share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by Ramesh Chandra that land in dispute [whose old numbers were plots 448 (area 0.58 acre), 478 (area 0.82 acre), 841 (area 0.89 acre) and 879 (area 0.55 acre) (total area 2.84 acre) was bhumidhari holding of Guru Prasad, his great grand father, who executed a gift deed dated 17.07.1956 in favour of Smt. Parag Devi, his widow daughter, creating a life interest in her for her maintenance. Smt. Parag Devi did not have transferable right over the land in dispute. After death of Smt. Parag Devi, land in dispute was jointly inherited by Ram Narain and Bankey Lal sons of Guru Prasad as such he had ½ share and remaining ½ share belonged to Smt. Manno Devi and Ghan Shyam (respondent-4 and 5). Gift deed dated 05.03.1974, executed by Smt. Parag Devi in favour of Smt. Prem Kali and Smt. Manno Devi was void. Smt. Manno Devi (respondent-4) supported the case of Ramesh Chandra (respondent-3).

4. The petitioner contested the case. It has been stated by the petitioner that Guru Prasad, who was bhumidhar of the land in dispute, executed a gift deed dated 17.07.1956 in favour of Smt. Parag Devi, his widow daughter, which was accepted by her. Name of Smt. Parag Devi was mutated over the land in dispute and she was in possession of it. Smt. Parag Devi was living with the petitioner and Smt. Manno Devi during her life time. Due to love and affection, Smt. Parag Devi executed a gift deed dated 05.03.1974 in their favour, which was accepted by them and their names were mutated over the land in dispute. Smt. Parag Devi had transferable right and gift deed dated 05.03.1974 was valid. Ramesh Chandra was never in possession of the land in dispute.

5. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. Apart from documentary evidence, Ramesh Chandra examined himself, Sitaram son of Banwari, Vidya son of Mahadeo as witnesses. The petitioner filed gift deed dated 05.03.1974 and examined Shridhar son of Ram Bilas, Lalji son of Deen Dayal and Smt. Prem Kali as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 21.07.2003 held that pedigree as given by Ramesh Chandra, Guru Prasad being bhumidhar of the land in dispute and execution of gift deed dated 17.07.1956 in favour of Smt. Parag Devi were admitted to the parties. A perusal of gift deed dated 17.07.1956 shows that life interest was created in favour of Smt. Parag Devi for her maintenance, specifically stipulating that she had no transferable right and after her death, land in dispute would devolved upon his sons Ram Narain and Banke Lal. All the terms of gift deed dated 17.07.1956 were liable to be read together. Terms of the gift deed specifically stipulated that after death of Smt. Parag Devi, land in dispute would be inherited by his sons. As such Smt. Parag Devi had no transferable right and gift deed dated 05.03.1974 executed by her in favour of the petitioner and Smt. Manno Devi was void. Ramesh Chandra was co-sharer in the land in dispute as such he shall be deemed to be in possession of it. On these findings, he allowed the objection of Ramesh Chandra and held his ½ share in it.

6. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered