The revisional court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering the share of co-tenancy in ancestral property, which was affirmed by the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

(Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. V. Ram, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. No one appeared on behalf of respondent nos.4/1 to 4/3.

3. Notice upon respondent nos.5 to 7 has already held sufficient vide order of this Court dated 12.1.1982.

4. The instant petition is pending before this Court for last 46 years, as such, the same is being heard and disposed of finally in absence of learned counsel for private respondent nos.4/1 to 4/3.

5. Brief facts of the case are that in the basic year of the consolidation operation, petitioners were recorded over plots of Khata no.615 situated in Village-Saunrai, Buzurg, Pargana Kara, Tahsil-Sirathu, District-Allahabad. An objection under Section 9 A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as "U.P.C.H. Act") has been filed by respondent no.4 i.e. Chaitoo claiming right of co-tenant of 1/2 share in respect to the plot in question. Tribhuwan & others have also filed objection against basic year entry in respect to plot no.1501, 1502, 1503 claiming that plots are sir plot, as such, name of recorded person be expunged and they may be recorded over the plot. The case was registered as Case No.806/ 1976. The issues were framed before the Consolidation Officer and Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.7.1976 dismissed the objection filed by respondent no.4 but the objection of Tribhuwan & others was allowed. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, an appeal under Section 11 (1) of U.P.C.H. Act was filed by respondent no.4, which was registered as Appeal No.588 and another appeal was filed by Chedi, which was registered as Appeal No.590. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard together. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 28.12.1976 allowed the appeal no.588 in part filed by respondent no.4 and appeal no.590 filed by the petitioner-Chedi was allowed. The Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation has rejected the claim of Tribhuwan & others and held that respondent no.4 will be entitled to 1/3 share and remaining 2/3 share shall be divided among the heirs of Gunguwa including plot nos.1501, 1502 & 1503. Against the appellate order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, three revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, under Section 48 of U.P.C.H. Act. Revision No.99/218 was filed by Chedi, Revision No.128/ 251 was filed by Prabhu & Revision No.111/ 234 was filed by Tribhuwan. All the three revisions were consolidated and heard together by Joint Director of Consolidation who vide order dated 21.4.1977 allowed the revision filed by Chaitoo modifying the share to the extent of 1/2 & 1/2. The revisions filed by Prabhu & Tribhuwan were rejected, hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner (Chedi & Others) challenging the the orders dated 21.4.1977, 28.12.1976 & 6.7.1976.

6. This Court has entertained the matter on 25.7.1977 and granted interim protection.

7. In pursuance of the order dated 25.7.1977 respondent no.4-Chaitoo has filed his counter affidavit and petitioners have filed their rejoinder affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Consolidation Officer has rightly rejected the title objection filed by respondent no.4 holding that property in dispute was not joint family property, as such, the objection filed by respondent no.4 cannot be allowed. He further submitted that appellate Court has illegally held that the property in question is joint family property, as such, respondent no.4 is entitled to be recorded as cotenant of the plot in question. He submitted that finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer has not been reversed in proper manner by Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation, as such, the appellate order cannot be sustained. He further submitted that the revisional Cour