The burden of proof for co-tenancy claims lies with the claimant, and reliance on inadmissible evidence can invalidate such claims.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.

2. Under challenge is the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 16.06.1976 whereby the objections preferred by the private respondent seeking a claim of co-tenancy was allowed. The petitioners thereafter assailed the same in an appeal which also came to be partly allowed by means of judgment dated 22.06.1976 and further being aggrieved the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed by means of order dated 21.03.1980.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned orders submits that the property in question is relating to Khata No. 262, situate in village Ashrafpur Bhuwa, Pargana Surhurpur, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Faizabad, measuring 6 bighas, 5 biswa and 5 biswansi. It is the case of the petitioners that the property in question was recorded in the name of Udit, son of Dukhi since the basic year. Upon commencement of consolidation operations in the village, the private respondent Raghuveer who claimed right of co-tenancy stating that initially the property belonged to Dukhi and thereafter Dukhi was survived by his two sons Udit and Raghuveer. Since Udit was the elder son hence the property came to be recorded in his name but nevertheless Raghuveer also would have a right and accordingly he claimed half share in respect of the plots of Khata No. 262.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the private respondent was seeking case of co-tenancy, the burden was on him to establish the fact and having failed to do so two courts relying upon inadmissible evidence has granted the rights to the private respondent which is apparently erroneous and this aspect has not been considered either by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation or Deputy Director of Consolidation appropriately, hence the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

5. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submits that the record would indicate that in the Khatauni of 1328 fasli year certain plots which comprised of Khata No. 263 was in the exclusive name of Raghuveer. The petitioners had disputed the right of Raghuveer being the son of Dukhi, thus this aspect was to be proved by the petitioners, they failed to do so and since the property was recorded in the name of Dukhi since 1314 fasli, hence being the son of Dukhi, the private respondents have a right and this has been noticed by two courts after considering the evidence on record and such findings are pure findings of fact recorded by the two courts after appraising the evidence and drawing inferences which necessarily also is the finding of fact. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Shri Verma has further submitted that the petition itself was defective; inasmuch as the 3rd party had filed the affidavit and even later the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the petitioners is also of a 3rd party, who is not a party to the writ petition. Consequently, the petition being defective is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

8. The core controversy which is involved in the instant petition is in respect of the rights claimed by the private respondents on the basis of cotenancy. The record would further indicate that in so far as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner is concerned, his name has been recorded in the revenue records right from 1329 fasli. It was also recorded in 1356 fasli and at the time of commencement of consolidation operations, the name of Udit was recorded in the base year Khatauni.

9. It is further seen from the impugned order that Raghuveer had taken a stand that he was the