The burden of proof lies on the party claiming co-tenancy, and long-standing revenue records cannot be disturbed without substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In the instant petition, the original petitioners namely Chhanga and Bashir have assailed the order dated 08.09.1978 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Mishrik, District Sitapur. The other order under challenge is dated 12.08.1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sitapur, as a consequence, the claim of co-tenancy claimed by the private respondents which was upheld by the Consolidation Officer did not find favour with the Settlement Officer of Consolidation but in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the order of SOC was set aside and the order of CO was upheld.

3. During pendency of the instant petition, the private respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have died and their legal heirs have been brought on record. The petitioners also moved another application bearing No. 104261 of 2013 indicating that the original petitioners have sold their share in favour of the applicants who have moved the said application for impleadment.

4. Even though, the said application remained pending, some of the applicants expired and another application bearing No. 159033 of 2021 was moved to correct the original application for amendment. Though, the said applications have been received by the learned counsel for the private respondents Sri Tiwari, however, no objections have been filed, as a consequence, the applications have been considered by the Court and are allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants shall carry out the necessary amendments and the office is directed to ensure that the certified copy of this judgment shall not be give unless the counsel for the petitioner carries out the said amendments in the arrays of parties.

6. The Court had heard Sri Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants who has assailed the impugned orders primarily on two grounds; (i) there was no material on record by which it could be established that the property in question was ancestral. The entries recorded in the revenue records have been misinterpreted by ignoring the provisions of law as applicable which has given rise to incorrect results.

7. The contention is that initially the property was recorded in the name of Munnu who was the common ancestor, however, upon his death which took place when the Oudh Rent Act, 1886 was in operation and at that time there was no provision for inheritance.

8. It is further urged that the name of Turab, the predecessors in interest of the present petitioners continued to be recorded at the time of date of vesting as well as in the base year Khatauni. Upon the death of Munnu, fresh rights were created in favour of Turab by the Zamindar and it is in this view of the matter that it was Turab whose name continued in the revenue records. At no point of time, any efforts were made by Kudrat and Khuda Baksh, the brothers of Turab to get their names incorporated or to correct the revenue records entries, accordingly, once these entries continued to remain in the name of Turab and the property has come in the hands of his successors namely Safdar and after him, the name of the original petitioners namely Chhanga and Bashir, accordingly, the claim of co-tenancy is not sustainable nor the necessary ingredients required to establish the same was proved.

9. The other submission of Sri Sahai, is that long-standing entries cannot be disturbed merely on the asking or setting up of claim by a party and in case if such a party does raise a claim at an appropriate time, heavy burden is on the said party to prove it which has not been done in the instant case.

10. It is also urged that the ground taken by the private respondents that they were party of a joint family, this plea is also not available to the respondents as the concept of joint family is amongst Hindus and not amongst the persons professing the faith of Islam, hence, in the aforesaid circumstances, this plea, though, not available had been incorrectl