The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing partition and joint family status, and the significance of revenue records in determining tenurial rights.

JUDGMENT :

Salil Kumar Rai, J.

Both the writ petitions arise out of a dispute between the same parties and their share in the same plots and were, therefore, connected by orders of this Court and have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, the counsel for the petitioners, the Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vishnu Singh, Advocate representing respondent nos. 3 & 4 and their heirs.

3. The dispute in the present writ petitions as well as in the consolidation proceedings from which the present writ petitions arise relates to plots included in Khata No. 122. The facts of the case are that one Ram Saran had three sons, namely, Bhulan, Gajadhar and Dubri. Bhagwan was the son of Bhulan and Sri Chand was the son of Bhagwan. Nand was the son of Gajadhar. Nand had one son, namely, Ram Chander. Rajendra, i.e, the petitioner, is the son of Ram Chander and is the great grandson of Gajadhar. Dubri had two sons, namely, Suraj and Ganga (impleaded as respondent no. 3 in Writ Petition No. 10611 of 1981). Respondents are descendants of Bhulan and Dubri. The aforesaid pedigree is admitted between the parties. In the revenue records relating to 1292 Fasli, Bhulan was recorded as non-occupancy tenant of Khata No. 122. However, subsequently in the revenue records relating to 1323 Fasli, Gajadhar was recorded as occupancy tenant of the disputed plots. It appears from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that in the revenue records of 1322 Fasli, Gajadhar was shown as occupancy tenant of the disputed plots since the last 28 years. There is some dispute regarding the entries in the revenue records of 1322 Fasli in as much as it has been stated by the petitioner that Gajadhar was recorded as occupancy tenant of the disputed plots in the records of 1324 Fasli and 1323 Fasli also but the period for which he held the said plots as occupancy tenant was not shown in the aforesaid revenue records. The said controversy, as would be evident from reasons given subsequently, is not relevant for a decision of the present writ petition. As a consequence of the entries in the revenue records since 1322/1323 Fasli, only Gajadhar and his descendants continued to be recorded as tenant in the revenue records and were recorded as such in the basic year records.

4. The respondents filed objections under Section 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Consolidation Officer alleging that the plots were jointly acquired by Bhulan, Gajadhar and Dubri, i.e., the sons of Ram Saran. The case of the respondents was that in 1292 Fasli, Bhulan and subsequently Gajadhar were recorded in the revenue records in representative capacity and, therefore, Bhulan, Gajadhar and Dubri and consequently their descendants had 1/3 share each in the disputed plots. On the aforesaid objections of the respondents, Case No. 5940 of 1974-75 under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 was registered before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner contested the aforesaid objections alleging that there was a partition between the descendants of Ram Saran and Gajadhar was recorded as occupancy tenant of the disputed plots not in representative capacity but as a result of a fresh settlement by the Zamindar in favour of Gajadhar. It was alleged that in view of the aforesaid, the objections of the respondents was liable to be rejected. To prove his case that there was a partition between the sons of Ram Saran before 1322 Fasli, the petitioner filed as evidence the plaint in Case No. 162 of 1949 instituted by the sons of Dubri against the grandfather of the petitioners which was dismissed in default by the trial court and also the plaint in Case No. 2300 of 1922 filed by Dubri wherein Dubri had allegedly stated that he had separated from Gajadhar and Bhagwan (the son of Bhulan) eight years before the institution of the case, i.e., some times in