The burden of proof lies on the party asserting property as Joint Hindu Family property, and mere assertions without evidence are insufficient to establish ownership.

JUDGMENT

Manish Kumar, J.

Heard.

2. Present petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 15.11.1976 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the impugned revisional order dated 26.09.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners and the respondents belong to the family of late Binda, who had two sons Sarju and Dwarika. Sarju had two sons namely Baiju and Gayadeen while Dwarika had two sons namely Neemar-petitioner and Sukhnandan-respondent no. 6. Baiju had two sons namely Jagannath-respondent no. 4 and Badri-respondent no. 5 whereas Gayadeen has three sons namely Sundarlal-respondent no.1, Shiv Shankar-respondent no. 2 and Ram Kumar-respondent no. 3.

4. It is further submitted that late Binda was a tenure holder of Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa, 356 and 51. After the demise of Binda, the family of the petitioners and the respondents entered into a compromise/family settlement for Khata No. 356 but for Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and Khata No. 51, there was a dispute. After the demise of Sarju, the respondents being legal heirs had preferred an application for mutation of their names in the revenue records in Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and 51 alleging that the land of Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and 51 was self acquired property of late Sarju.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioners had preferred an objection in the said case and raised an objection that it is a Joint Hindu Family property acquired from the Joint Hindu Family funds so all the parties have an equal share in Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and 51 as it has been agreed between the parties by a compromise for Khata No. 356. The Consolidation Officer had passed an order treating petitioners and respondents as joint owner or co-tenure holder of Khata Nos. 332 aa, 332 ba, 332 sa and 51. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who had passed an order setting aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 13.02.1976 with a finding that the petitioners have failed to establish the five relevant factors for the purpose of joint tenure holdership as a Joint Hindu Family property. Against the order passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the revision preferred by the petitioners has also been dismissed/rejected by judgment and order dated 26.09.1980. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

6. It is further submitted that the appellate authority while deciding the appeal has failed to consider the evidence adduced by the petitioners and without appreciating the evidence and the statements of the witnesses produced by the petitioners correctly had passed the impugned order dated 15.11.1976.

7. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is an order after considering all the relevant factors which could not be interfered with by the Appellate Authority.

8. It is further submitted that the Revisional Authority had not seen even a single ground of the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority without application of mind.

9. It is further submitted that the Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and 51 was Joint Hindu Family property and the same was purchased from the funds of the Joint Hindu Family.

10. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents has submitted that Khata Nos. 332 Aa, Ba and Sa and 51 was purchased by their father late Sarju out of his own fund. Hence, it is not a Joint Hindu Family property and it has rightly been held by the Appellate Court and the Revisional Court that it is a property belonging to the late Sarju, whose name is recorded in the revenue records i.e. in the Basic Fasli year 1374-76.

11. It i