Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The dispute in the present writ petition as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petition arises relates to Khata Nos. 38Ka, 38Kha and 120 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘disputed property’).

3. The facts of the case are that one Ram Din was the original tenure holder of the disputed property. Sheo Barat was the son of Ram Din. The aforesaid facts are admitted by the parties. The contention of the petitioner is that Chauthi i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was the only son of Sheo Barat. On the other hand, the contention of respondent No. 2 had been that Chauthi and respondent No. 2 were the sons of Sheo Barat who was also known as Ameer. During the consolidation proceedings, Case Nos. 6979 and 6987 under Section 9A-(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1953’) were registered in the Court of Consolidation Officer on the issue whether Chauthi was the sole tenure holder of the disputed plots and the decision of the said issue depended on the answer to the question as to whethe