The judgment emphasizes the presumption of joint ownership in Hindu Law and the limited legal value of mutation in Revenue records. It also highlights the importance of evidence of family settlement or partition in determining joint tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate, for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents, despite the case having been called in revise.

2. The dispute relates to the Gatas recorded in Khata No. 90, 161 and 162 as detailed below :

3. Petitioner, Dukkhu, son of Jhuru, claimed that the aforesaid land was ancestral tenancy inasmuch Devi Charan had three sons, Mahngu, Shiv Niwaj and Ram Niwaj and all the three were recorded as co-occupants of the disputed land, in Revenue record. Name of Hemraj was also recorded in representative capacity. Defendants-3, 4, 5 and 6 are cousins of Dukkhu. Family tree given in the order of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CO") is as under :

4. Basic year Revenue entry contained names of Chhakkan, son of Munnu in respect of Khata No. 90, Achaivar son of Sampati in respect of Khata No. 161 and Sitai in respect of Khata No. 162 and were shown as Sirdar.

5. An objection was filed by petitioner before CO Pindra, District Varanasi claiming that the aforesaid land was a co-tenancy of ancestors of petitioner and respondents-3, 4, 5 and 6. In 1291 fasali, land comprised of Khata No. 97 was shown in name of Mahangu, Gata No. 103 and 315 were shown in the name of Shiv Niwaj and 99 was shown in the name of Ram Niwas. Thereafter, due to some mistake Hemraj was shown as representative in 1334 fasali. Petitioner had co-tenancy rights over the aforesaid land.

6. Petitioner's objection was rejected by CO Pindra, District Varanasi by order dated 30.08.1973 whereagainst he preferred appeal under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953") before Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as "ASOC"), who allowed appeal vide order dated 25.11.1974 and held that in the land comprising of Khata No. 90 and 162, petitioner has co-tenancy rights upto the extent of 1/2 share. Operative part of order passed by ASOC reads as under:

^^;g vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, fd p0v0 dk fu.kZ; jn~n fd;k tkrk A [kkrk 90 o 162 esa Jh nqD[kh iq= Hkq# dk uke NDdu o flrbZ ds lkFk ÁR;sd [kkrs esa 1@4 Hkkx esa vafdr gks rFkk 3@4 Hkkx esa [kkrk 90 o NDdu o 3@4 Hkkx esa [kkrk 162 esa flrbZ dk uke vafdr jgsA**

“By allowing this appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer is dismissed. The name of Shri Dukkhi S/o Bhuru be recorded for 1/4th portion in each of Khata nos. 90 and 162 along with Chhakkan and Sitai; and let the name of Sitai be recorded in 3/4th portion of Khata no. 90, and let the name of Chhakkan be recorded in 3/4th portion of Khata no. 162.”

(English Translation by Court)

7. Chhakkan and two others preferred Revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "DDC"), who has allowed Revision vide order dated 08.10.1975 and set aside order passed by ASOC.

8. DDC has relied on the fact that in Basic year, name of petitioner was not shown in Revenue record and, therefore no share could have been allotted to petitioner. Relevant findings recorded by DDC read as under:

^^pwWafd vk/kkj o”kZ esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dk uke vafdr gSA vr% vius dFku dks fl) djus dk Hkkj foi{kh nqD[kh ij Fkk ijUrq og fuHkkus esa vlQy jgsA fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh us [kkrk la0 90 o 162 esa nqD[kh dks 1@2 fgLls dk lg&[kkrsnkj ekuk gSA mUgksaus bldk vk/kkj xzke chdki