The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish joint ownership of property, which requires evidence of unbroken continuity of joint possession throughout generations, as mere assertions are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of private respondents to oppose this petition. The present petition is listed under the heading 'THESE CASES SHALL NOT BE ADJOURNED'. As such, this Court proceeded to hear the case finally.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel.

3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.05.1973 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as "ASOC") in Appeal Nos. 992 and 1974, which were filed under Section 11 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"). The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 18.07.1978 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as "DDC") in Revision Nos. 2645 and 2638, which were filed under Section 48 of the Act of 1953.

4. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to indicate here that earlier this petition was allowed vide order dated 20.10.2008. Thereafter, an application (C.M. Application No. 127124 of 2014) seeking recall of the order dated 20.10.2008 was filed alongwith an application (C.M. Application No. 127123 of 2014) for condonation of delay and this Court after taking note of the averments made in the application(s), recalled the final order dated 20.10.2008 vide order dated 31.08.2017, which on reproduction reads as under:-

"C.M.Application No.127123 of 2014

Considering the statement of affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the application for recall of order dated 20.10.2008 is condoned.

C.M.Application No.127124 of 2014

This is an application for recall of order dated 20.10.2008.

The learned counsel for the applicants/respondents has submitted that the opposite parties 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 had already died and the applications for substitution of their legal heirs were pending, but it appears that those were escaped from mentioning to the court and this court proceeded to decide the matter finally against the dead persons vide order dated 20.10.2008.

Despite time provided to the petitioners, no objection has been filed. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and found it appropriate to recall the order dated 20.10.2008 and restore the writ petition to its original number.

Let a fresh notice be issued to the petitioners to decide the case afresh on merit."

5. Now reverting to the matter, the dispute in the present case relates to Khata No. 88 situated at Village Khandsara, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur. In regard to Khata No. 88, the original petitioner No. 1 namely Ram Asrey and Abhai Narain (father of original petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 namely Ram Pyarey and Radhey Shyam), both sons of Sahadeo (in short "claimants/objectors"), filed the objection under Section 9 -A(2) of the Act of 1953. In this objection, the relief was also sought with regard to Deep Narain son of Sahadeo. It appears from the copy of order dated 21.06.1971 (Annexure No. 4 to this petition) passed by Consolidation Officer, Kadipur, Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as "CO') in Case No. 848 that CO declared that Ram Asrey, Abhai Narain and Deep Narain are entitled to 1/4 share of Khata No. 88. The cl