The Court emphasized the importance of documentary and oral evidence in determining property ownership and upheld the Trial Court's findings as findings of fact.

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Santosh Dwivedi, Sri Punit Kumar Upadhaya, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Sri Vijay Kumar Singh & Sri Vishnu Singh, Advocates representing the contesting private respondents.

2. The facts of the case are that Bhonu Ram, Sonhu, Mewa, Sukkhu and Lurkhur were the sons of Bulli. The petitioners are the grandson of Bhonu Ram. Respondent nos. 4 to 16 are the heirs and legal representatives of Sonhu, Mewa, Sukkhu and Lurkhur. Sonhu and Mewa i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 4, 10 and 11 instituted Case No. 500 of 1971 under Sections 229-B/176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1950') against Bhonu, Sukkhu and Lurkhur claiming 1/5th share each in the suit property. The property specified as suit property in the plaint instituting the aforesaid case and relevant in the present writ petition are Plot Nos. 3/1, 14A, 14B, 28/1, 28/2, 29 and 30. The aforesaid case was necessitated because the name of Bhonu was recorded in the revenue records as the sole tenure holder of the aforesaid plots (hereinafter referred to as, 'disputed plots'). The Trial Court i.e. respondent no. 3 vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.1976 held Lurkhur i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 9 as the sole sirdar of Plot No. 28/2 and Bhonu to be the exclusive tenure holder of Plot No. 31/1. However, vide its judgment and decree dated 9.3.1976, the Trial Court held that so far as Plot Nos. 28/1, 14A, 14B, 29 and 30 were concerned, the name of Bhonu was recorded in the revenue records in representative capacity and the plaintiffs as well as defendants in the said case were co-tenure holders of the disputed plots and had 1/5th share each in the same. The findings regarding Plot No. 28/2 was recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of judgments dated 25.10.1945, 14.4.1948 and 17.4.1957 passed in proceedings instituted under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1939') for eviction of Lurkhur. The findings regarding Plot Nos. 29 and 30 were recorded by the Trial Court on the basis of statements given by Bhonu himself in Case No. 184 registered under Section 180 of the Act, 1939 and instituted by one Bhawani Devi against Bhonu, Sonhu, Mewa, Sukkhu and Lurkhur i.e. all the five brothers. In the aforesaid case, Bhonu Ram had appeared as a witness and had admitted that all the five brothers were in joint possession of the suit property involved in Case No. 184. Regarding Plot Nos. 14A and 14B, the Trial Court relied on a sale deed dated 2.9.1953 allegedly executed by one Hasmat Ullah in favour of all the five brothers i.e. the plaintiffs and defendants in Case No. 500 of 1971 and on the statement of Bhonu Ram recorded on 23.9.1972 that the plaintiffs and defendants constituted a joint family and till 20 years back he was the Karta of the joint family. Similarly, regarding Plot No. 28/1, the Trial Court relied on the judgments delivered in Case No. 98 of 1951 under Section 59 of the Act, 1939 and in Case No. 103 of 1947 showing that Lurkhur i.e. the predecessor in interest of respondent no. 9 was given possession of the aforesaid plots. Apart from aforesaid document and evidence, the Trial Court also relied on the statement of Bhonu Ram recorded on 23.9.1972 admitting that he was the Karta of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants till 20 years back. Against the judgment and decree dated 9.3.1976 passed by the Trial Court, Bhonu Ram filed an appeal under Section 331 of the Act,1950 which was numbered as Appeal No. 109 of 1976 and was dismissed by respondent no. 2 vide its judgment and order dated 14.4.1978. Subsequently, Bhonu Ram filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Allahabad i.e. respondent no. 1 which was numbered as Second Appeal No. 106 of 1977-78. Initially, the said appeal was d