The Board of Revenue erred in disregarding documentary evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims and overstepped its jurisdiction by reversing concurrent factual findings of lower courts.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. The original plaintiffs (Hridya Prakash and Prabal Prakash sons of Ram Bharose Lal), have filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”) for division of holdings against original defendants (Vendees), whereas Vendors were Anand Prakash, Ved Prakash and Shree Prakash all sons of Ram Bharose and their father Ram Bharose, who sold their share to original defendants.

2. The original plaintiffs claimed that they have equal rights as their 3 brothers (4^th already died) since they were also co-opted by their mother with consent of the Zamindar probably at later period.

3. An attempt was made by original defendants that plaintiffs were not born during 1352 Fasli i.e. 1945, but it failed since mother of original plaintiffs and original defendants (vendors), died in 1943 and in 1944 their one brother (Vinay Prakash) also died issueless and since parentage of original plaintiff is not under much dispute, therefore, they were born before 1943, when their mother died.

4. It remain undisputed that in the khatauni 1376 Fasli to 1378 Fasli, names of Anand Prakash, Shree Prakash and Ved Prakash sons of Ram Bharose and Ram Bharose (since his other son Vinay died issueless) were recorded on land in dispute by an order dated 15.05.1970 and ‘Amal Daramad’ was later on passed by Parganadhikari and their names were expunged and names of original defendants were recorded on basis of Bainama.

5. Original plaintiffs have claimed that their names were also recorded in Punahnirikshan ¼iqfufj{k.k½ khatauni as co-tenure holders and accordingly CH Forms 23 and 24 were also prepared during consolidation, however, their names were not recorded in CH Form 45 due to some error and, therefore, their share were also sold to original defendants.

6. It is also not much under dispute that property in dispute was of their Nana through their mother and when she died, it appears all were minor. Shares of all brothers except of original plaintiffs were not recorded in khatauni and bainama made in favour of original defendants and for that a suit for partition was filed.

7. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector by an order dated 30.06.1973 and original plaintiffs were granted 7/30 and 1/30 share respectively, whereas defendants (vendees) were granted in total 22/30th share of land in dispute. Relevant part of the order dated 30.06.1973 is reproduced hereinafter:

8. The original defendants being aggrieved by above referred judgment and decree filed a first appeal before Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was allowed in part by an order dated 01.05.1975 and shares were re-determined i.e. 1/7 each was granted to both original plaintiffs and remaining 5/7 share to original two defendants and it was directed that preliminary decree be accordingly modified. Relevant part of the order dated 01.05.1975 is reproduced hereinafter:

9. The original defendants thereafter filed a second appeal bearing No.271 of 1974-75 before Board of Revenue, which was allowed in its entirety that judgments and decree passed by both the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed by an order dated 28.09.1983. Relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinfter:

“6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. It has been argued that in C.H. Form 45 only vendors were recorded that the suit in barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act that Bhumidhari Sanad wan obtained on 31.7.1950; that the vendors have not been