JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. Property in dispute is distributed in various Khatas situated at three villages namely, Surahi, Thari and Binda, Pargana Kolasla, District Varanasi. Details of Khata number, village and name of persons recorded in basic year are mentioned hereinafter:

Khata Nos. Village Name of persons recorded

74 Surahi Ram Adhar, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

61 Surahi Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Adhar, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

54 Surahi Ram Dhari, Ram Adhar, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

71 Surahi Ram Chandra, Ramdhari, Srikant

170 Surahi Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Adhar, Mata Badal

70 Surahi Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Adhar

35 Thari Ram Adhar, Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

37 Thari Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Adhar

54 Thari Ram Adhar, Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

105 Thari Ram Adhar, Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

36 Thari Ram Adhar

137 Thari Ram Adhar, Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

47 Binda Ram Adhar, Ram Chandra, Ram Dhari, Srikant, Ram Ujagir, Awadh Narain

2. During consolidation proceedings several set of objections were filed by petitioner and respondents. The Consolidation Officer has decided objections by three separate orders in respect of each village i.e. orders dated 16.03.1973, 20.08.1973 and 08.10.1973.

3. Being aggrieved on respective grounds, petitioners and respondents have filed seven appeals out of which six were dismissed and only one appeal was allowed in part by order dated 17.10.1974 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

4. Rival parties thereafter filed seven revisions, before Revisional Authority out of which four were dismissed and three were partly allowed by order dated 15.01.1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, both parties have approached this Court by way of filing two writ petitions, i.e., Writ-B No. 861 of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “First Writ Petition”) by Ram Adhar and Writ-B No. 669 of 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “Second Writ Petition”) by Ram Chandra.

6. Heard Sri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner in First Writ Petition (Respondent in Second Writ Petition) and Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner in Second Writ Petition (Respondent in First Writ Petition), at length. The issues which arose for consideration by this Court could be summarized in following manner:

(I) The pedigree as mentioned in the impugned orders as well as referred below was not in dispute that Nidhi, Gaya and Shiv Bandhan were sons of Shiv Balak (common ancestor of petitioner and respondents as well). However, dispute was about respective date of their death, i.e., original petitioner-Ram Adhar (contesting respondent in Second Writ Petition) claimed that firstly Shiv Bandhan died thereafter Nidhi and lastly Gaya died and accordingly he claimed 2/3 share, whereas claim of contesting-respondents (petitioner in Second Petition) was that firstly Gaya died, thereafter Nidhi and lastly Shiv Bandhan died, therefore, being grandson of Shiv Bandhan they claimed 5/9 share, therefore, Court has to scrutinize respective claims and findings recorded by authorities on above issue, that whether findings are legally sustainable or not?

(II) Whether, a compromise entered by Smt. Jagwanti, allegedly major daughter of Nidhi on her behalf and on behalf of her younger minor sister, Balwanti with others would be a legally acceptable compromise or it would hit by Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) being an unregistered document?

(III) Whether, an unregistered written family settlement executed by Panchs on a written request of parties being agreed for partition would be admissible in evidence in view of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referredtoas“Act,1908”)or what would be its effect if it was already implemented