To establish co-tenancy rights over ancestral property, the unchanged identity of the land throughout generations must be shown, which was not proven in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri U.S Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girish Kumar holding brief of Sri Jai Pal Singh learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. The petitioners before this Court have laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 19.01.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred to as D.D.C) whereby two revisions, one preferred by respondent no.2 (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) and the other revision filed by the petitioner no.1, which were clubbed were decided by a common judgment and as a consequence, the revision preferred by the respondent no.2 was allowed and the revision of the petitioner no.1 was dismissed.

3. During pendency of the instant writ petition the private respondent nos.2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 had died and their legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, this Court shall refer to the parties as they were impleaded in the writ petition itself.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petition, certain facts leading up to this petition are being noticed hereinafter.

5. The dispute in question pertains to Khata no.213 which was recorded in the names of the petitioners as Sirdari. Even though at the time of commencement of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, disputes pertaining to the other khata nos.212, 117/1 and 27 was also raised by the respondent no.2 Nanhu who claimed rights in the said khata, while his parentage was disputed by the present petitioners. However, later in the stage of the litigation, the dispute was confined only to khata no.213 which has been escalated and is now before this Court in the instant writ petition.

6. As noticed above, khata no.213 was recorded as Sirdari khata in name of the petitioners and this was objected by the private respondent nos.2 to 5 who claimed rights on the basis of the co-tenancy.

7. It was the specific case of the petitioners that the land comprising of Khata no.213 was solely acquired by the father of the petitioners namely Santu. This was objected by Nanhu who stated that Gajodhar and Santu were his real brothers and the said plots were acquired with the joint efforts of all but since Santu was the elder brother hence his name was recorded in the revenue records though in a representative capacity. It was, thus, stated that upon death of Gajodhar, his rights were inherited by Nanhu as well hence, he had a claim of co-tenancy in the said khata no.213.

8. The petitioners objected to the claim of Nanhu on the specific plea that apart from the fact that khata no.213 was solely acquired by Sri Santu but additionally disputed the claim of Nanhu on the ground that Nanhu was the son of Budhai and not son of Durga. It was further stated by the petitioners that mother of Nanhu namely Sugandha was wife of Durga. Upon the death of Sri Durga, his widow Sugandha started residing with her sister namely Basanta who was the wife of Budhai. It was also stated that since Sugandha was residing with Basanta, she developed certain intimate relations with Budhai and from the said communion, Nanhu was born and he was son of Budhai. It was thus urged that for the aforesaid reasons, he could neither have any right on the basis of co-tenancy nor he was the son of Durga, accordingly, his claim be rejected.

9. The matter went to trial before the Consolidation Officer and afte