JUDGMENT

U. C. Srivastava, J. - After losing the case before all consolidation authorities the petitioners have filed this writ petition. So far as petitioners are concerned the dispute is confined to Khata No. 204 of the village in question which includes few plots. Earlier there was some dispute regarding pedigree as the pedigree set up by the petitioners was disputed and their predecessor Shiv Bhik who was not admitted to be brother of Shiv Dayal, i. e., predecessor of opposite parties, but later on it appears that it was admitted before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, that is why there is no dispute regarding pedigree. The following pedigree will be relevant :

Pratit

Shiv Dayal urf Dadaji

Gur Prasad

Gajadhar

Prahlad

Bhagwan Dass

Ram Dass

Orauni (disputed)

Gurdin Bewa Umrai

Shiv Bhikh

Barsati

Ram Mohan

Ram Saran

Girdhari

Dhoom

Hanoman

2. The petitioners filed objections claiming cotenancy rights over the Khata in dispute as the same was acquired from the time of common ancestor and the parties were in joint possession of the same and, in the alternative, sirdari rights over few plots were claimed.

3. The matter came before the Consolidations Officer before whom parties tendered oral and documentary evidence in support of their case.

So far as khata in dispute is concerned the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed and the revision petition too met with the same fate.

4. There was no entry in the name of common ancestor, but in 1301 F the land in dispute was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal. In Khetauni 1314 F subdivisions of the plots were made and Khata No. 87/1 was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal, measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas 10 dhurs and khata No. 87/2 was entered in the name of Shiv Bhikh, son of Pratit, measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas and khata No. 87/3 and two more plots measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas 10 dhurs were entered in the name of Smt. Umrai, but consolidated land revenue of these three subdivisions was mentioned as Rs. 25/13/0. It appears that there was some private arrangement of partition which was also accepted by the Zamindar and that is why names of three branches were entered and subdivisions were indicated though area held by them was not equal. In Ib28 F the three khatas measuring 6 bighas1 biswa, land revenue Rs. 33/14/ was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal, Jaman3 Matahatdari, but over few plots name of Mst. Umrai was entered as Gairkabiz and over few plots name of Shiv Bhikh was entered in that capacity. The entry in 1328F was obviously incorrect inasmuch as Shiv Dayal could not and did not become underproprietor, but this indicated only this much that name of Shiv Dayal was entered and Mst. Umrai and Shiv Bhikh were in possession over few plots. The number of plots have not been indicated in the judgment to show that these were very same plots which were entered in their respective names in 1314F.

5. On behalf of opposite parties three pattas were filed executed on 14th September, 1912, 31st August, 1919 and 15th October, 1927 to show that earlier name of Shiv Dayal was entered, but later on name of his sons were entered in 1927 with an area of 6 bighas18 biswas, land revenue Rs. 39/ and the plots were the same which were entered in 1328F in the name of Shiv Dayal. Duration of these pattas was 7 years. In Khatauni 1343F name of Girdhari, predecessor of the petitioners was entered over few plots. Subsequently an area of 6 bighas14 biswas was entered in the name of Gur Prasad with a duration of 9 years. In 1343F an area of 6 bighas5 biswas5 dhurs was entered in the name of Gur Prasad with a duration of three years which obviously was incorrect as in the earlier years duration was shown to be 9 years. In 1343F separate land measuring 3 bighas12 biswas15 dhurs with a duration of 9 years was entered in the name of Girdhari, predecessor of the petitioners and incidentally the duration was the same which was that of the Patta of Gur Prasad referred to