JUDGMENT

K.P. Singh, J. - There are three khatas in dispute in the present writ petition namely khatas Nos. 68, 68-A and 5. It is not disputed before me that originally katwaroo, Shiv Dayal and Kanhai, were co-tenure holders of the disputed khatas. No doubt in the year 1950 a dispute had arisen and in that dispute a compromise was arrived at, which mentioned that on the death of Katwaroo, the heirs of Kanhai and Shiv Dayal would take the property in dispute half and half. It appears that Shiv Dayal has executed sale deed in favour of petitioners in this writ petition. During the consolidation operation opposite party No. 2 Chhabboo had claimed right in the disputed khatas. The claim of opposite party No. 2 was not accepted by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) qua khatas Nos. 68 and 68-A. The objection filed by the petitioners qua khata No. 5 was allowed by the Consolidation Officer and the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was confirmed in appeal, but in revision both the judgments have been disturbed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners before me is that the revisional court has wrongly given ? share to opposite party No. 2 in the disputed khatas. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the sale deeds executed by Shiv Dayal were upheld and opposite party No. 2 could not succeed before the civil court, yet the revisional court has patently erred in brushing aside the sale deeds and the decision of the civil court in granting ? share to opposite party No. 2 namely Chhabboo. It has also been emphasised before me that since the parties had arrived at a compromise and had agreed to take the share of one co-tenure holder as half and half, the aforesaid compromise should be held as binding upon the parties concerned. The first two courts have correctly negatived the claim of opposite party No. 2, but the revisional court has patently erred in granting share to the contesting opposite party No. 2.

3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment. According to him on the death of a co-tenure-holder named Khatwaroo the other co-tenure holder Shiv Dayal was a preferential heir and he would get ?rd share in the khatas in dispute ; therefore, the revisional court has correctly determined that ?th share would go to the contesting opposite party. It has been emphasised that any settlement against the law would not be binding upon the persons who have entered into compromise without knowing their legal claims. It has also been emphasised that the compromise relied upon by the first two courts was invalid when the cause of action had not arisen and any compromise about a future event would not be a legally valid compromise.

4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments of the consolidation authorities. It is well known that any compromise or admission in ignorance of legal right would not be binding upon the persons concerned. The aggrieved person by a compromise can demonstrate that the compromise was bad as it was against the provisions of law and in ignorance of the correct legal position. The perusal of the impugned judgment of the revisional court indicates that the revisional court has recognised the legal right of the tenure-holders on the death of one co-tenure holder named Khatwaroo. The finding recorded by the revisional court qua khata No. 68-A appears to me quite justified in law.

5. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioners has read the sale deeds executed by Sheo Dayal in favour of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 which mentioned half share of Sheo Dayal in disputed khata No. 68-A. From the materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that Sheo Dayal had not bhumidhari right qua half share only in the disputed