JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The Bench admitting this writ petition was of the opinion that the decision in Shah Mohammad v. Niaz Mohammad S.A. No. 2456 of 1967 Dt-10-3-1969 requires reconsideration and recommended that the writ petition be heard by a Division Bench. That is how this case has been laid before this Bench.

2. One Mata Prasad had a half share in the grove plot in dispute. He died leaving two sons Har Swarup and Shri Ram. Har Swarup died in 1936, leaving a widow Smt. Suraj Kumari, Plaintiff-Respondent. At the commencement and end of the Consolidation operations the revenue records showed that Smt. Suraj Kumari was a co-tenant of this grove plot. She instituted the present suit for partition u/s 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The suit was contested by Sri Ram on the ground that it was barred by a family settlement and that under the personal law the Plaintiff had no share or interest in the grove plot.

3. The trial court held that the alleged compromise did not relate to the plot in dispute. It did not operate as an estoppel to bar a suit. It was also held that in view of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act the question whether the Plaintiff had any title or sha