The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of thoroughly examining all documentary and oral evidence before reaching a decision, especially in cases involving disputes over lineage and parentage.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

1. Heard Sri C.K. Rai and Sri Anil Tiwari, for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Singh and Sri Juned Alam, for respondents-4 to 11 and 13. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 28.2.1984 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.4.2013, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khatas 314 and 375 of village Pakadiyar Poorabpatti, pargana Sidhuwa Jobna, district Deoria (at present Kushi Nagar). Khata 314 was recorded in the names of Nazir, Paigamber Din, sons of Ishu, Ibrahim, Israil, Ismail, Ishaq sons of Habib and khata 375 was recorded in the names of Paigamber Din son of Ishu, Ibrahim, Israil, Ismail, Ishaq sons of Habib, Jumrati son of Daud, in basic consolidation records. During partal, dispute was noted that the name of Jumrati son of Daud be recorded as co-tenure holder. Several other disputes were noted regarding share of the various co-tenure holders and correction of area of various plots of the khatas. Nazir filed an objection claiming co-tenancy in khata 375. Paigamber Din filed an objection for changing parentage of Nazir as Daud in place of Ishu and for deleting the name of Jumrati. Paigamber Din filed another objection, claiming sole tenancy of plots 954 Smt. Nabi Hasan and Smt. Hafizan filed an objection claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share jointly in plots 960 and 961. Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the dispute to Consolidation Officer. Now in this writ petition, the dispute is confined to the parentage of Nazir. According to the petitioners, Nazir was son of Daud while according to Nazir and Jumrati, Nazir was son of Ishu.

3. It is admitted that Daud and Ishu were real brothers and sons of Nasaralli. Daud was married to Smt. Mashihna, from whom Jumman was born. Ishu was married to Smt. Bakilna from whom Habib was born. According to the petitioners, after birth of Jumman, Smt. Mashihna died and Daud remarried to Smt. Jumratna, from whom two sons Jumrati and Nazir were born and thereafter, Daud died. Then Smt. Jumratna was remarried to Ishu from whom Paigamber Din was born. While according to Nazir and Jumrati, after death of Smt. Mashihna, Daud remarried to Smt. Jumratna, from whom only one son Jumrati was born, thereafter, Daud died. Then Smt. Jumratna remarried to Ishu from whom two sons, Nazir and Paigamber Din were born. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 28.2.1984 held that the land in dispute was jointly recorded in the names of Daud and Ishu in 1323 F. In 1347 F, khatauni, the land in dispute was recorded in the names of Ishu son of Nasaralli and Jumman, Jumrati sons of Daud and same entry continued up to 1375 F. In Voter Lists of the year 1965, 1968, 1969, 1971 and 1973 names of Nazir and Paigamber Din sons of Ishu were recorded in house No. 156. Name of Jumman son of Daud was recorded in house No. 155 and Jumrati son of Daud was recorded in house No. 154. At that time Ishu was alive and no dispute was raised either by Ishu or Paigamber Din. In the copies of Family Register, issued on 17.7.1974 and 1.10.1982, parentage of Nazir was mentioned as Ishu. In the copy of Family Register, issued on 26.11.1982, parentage of Nazir was noted as Daud. From khatauni 1347 F, it is clear that in case, Nazir had been son of Daud, then his name must have been recorded along with two other sons of Daud. Same entry was continued up to 1375 F and no objection was raised by any of the parties. As such it is proved that Nazir was son of Ishu and not Daud. The claim of Smt. Nabi Hasan and Smt. Hafizan was not found to be proved. Issue relating to Jumrati was not dealt with. On these findings, objections of Paigamber Din, Jumrati son of Daud and Smt. Nabi Hasan and others, so far as it was for changing parentage of Nazir was dismissed and so far as it was for deleting the name of Jumrati was a