Co-owners cannot claim adverse possession against each other; such possession must be open, hostile, and continuous, proven according to legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has put in appearance to argue the case on behalf of the private-respondents.

2. Under challenge are the three orders passed by the consolidation courts whereby the claim of the petitioner claiming rights in respect of Khata No.6, 7 and 8, situate in village Aalapur, Pargana Mallawan, Tehsil Bilgram, District Hardoi, was rejected.

3. The disputed plots of Khata Nos.7 and 8 was recorded in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiv Kumari whereas the plots comprising of Khata No.6 was recorded in the name of Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chootka in the basic year Khatauni.

4. Upon commencement of consolidation operations, Raj Bahadur Singh had filed objections stating that Smt. Chhotka did not have any share in Khata No.6 and her name was incorrectly recorded. Raj Bahadur Singh claimed his rights in the disputed Khata on the basis of adverse possession. As per Raj Bahadur Singh, he had possession of 1/4th share of the property belonging to Smt. Chhotka while he had half share in Khata No.6 and the other two persons, namely, Lal Bahadur Singh and Sheo Kumar had 1/4th share.

5. Another set of objections were filed by Smt. Chhotka wherein she claimed rights in all the three Khatas i.e. 6, 7 and 8 on the ground that the land of the aforesaid Khatas was ancestral and she had 1/4th share in all the Khatas. She further stated that she had acquired 1/4th share of Raj Bahadur Singh in all the Khatas in an auction sale which was confirmed in her favour in 1954. She further stated that she had also parted with 1/8th share in the aforesaid Khata in favour of Raj Bahadur Singh.

6. A family pedigree was also set up which indicated that the common ancestor of the parties was one Jagat Singh who was survived by his two sons Roop Singh and Indal Singh.

7. In the branch of Roop Singh, his two sons, namely, Chandrika Singh and Hardev Singh were present and Raj Bahadur Singh was son of Chandrika Singh and he belonged to the branch of Roop Singh. Whereas Smt. Chhotka belonged to the branch of Hardev Singh.

8. Smt. Shiv Kumari and Lal Bahadur Singh, they belonged to the branch of Indal Singh. While there were conflicting claims raised by Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka, another person, namely, Sumer Singh also moved objections seeking mutation in respect of half share of Smt. Shiv Kumari in Khata No.7 on the basis of a sale deed said to have been executed by Lal Bahadur Singh and Smt. Shiv Kumari in his favour.

9. Though separate objections were filed by four persons which came to be rejected by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 04.09.1968 but primarily the dispute in question thereafter was fiercely contested between Raj Bahadur Singh and Smt. Chhotka.

10. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 04.09.1968, two appeals came to be filed before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation both by Raj Bahadur Singh in respect of the dispute in respect of Khatas no.6, 7 and 8. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation also after hearing the parties did not find favour with the claim set up by Raj Bahadur Singh and consequently both the appeals were dismissed by means of order dated 16.06.1969.

11. This order was further challenged in a revision which was also dismissed by means of order dated 31.08.1970. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was assailed before this Court in Writ Petition No.1631 of 1970 and it came to be allowed on 30.08.1976. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation where the revisi