Co-tenancy claims require demonstration of ancestral ties and continuity; mere presumption of joint heritage is insufficient for property claims.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Garg, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Aman Srivastava, learned Counsel for private respondents and Mr. Om Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to total 146 plots area 55.84 acres situated in Village Bansi, Pargana Bansi, District Lalitpur (Jhansi) as mentioned in paragraph no. 1 of the writ petition. Respondent no.1-B/ Janki, respondent no.2/ Bhaiya Lal, respondent no.3/ Hardas filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming co-tenancy right along with defendant nos. 3 to 29 on the ground that Fattu and Nanha were common ancestors of the parties and land in suit is coming down from time of ancestors which was acquired out of the nucleaus of the Joint Hindu Family Fund and parties have been in possession over the same. Defendant nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,14 & 29 jointly filed written statement denying the plaintiff's claim. It was also mentioned in the written statement that land in suit exclusively belongs to aforementioned defendants and plaintiffs have no right and title in the land in suit nor they have been in possession over the land in suit. It was also mentioned in the written statement that suit is time barred. In the aforementioned suit, parties adduced oral and documentary evidences in support of their cases. Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 30.10.1971 dismissed the plaintiff's suit recording finding that land in suit has not been proved to have come down from the time of common ancestor. Against the judgement and decree of Trial Court dated 30.10.1971, an appeal was filed by plaintiffs Janki and others before Commissioner which was registered as appeal no. 64 of 1971. The aforementioned appeal was heard by Additional Commissioner and the same was allowed vide judgement dated 19.8.1974 decreeing the plaintiff suit setting aside the judgement and decree of Trial Court. Against the judgement and decree dated 19.8.1974 passed by Additional Commissioner, petitioners filed second appeal before Board of Revenue which was registered as second appeal No. 9 (z) of 1974-1975. The aforementioned second appeal was dismissed by Board of Revenue vide judgement dated 12.8.1981 hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:-

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.8.1981 passed by opposite party no.I, and order dated 19.9.1974 passed by opposite party no.

I-A."

3. This Court admitted the writ petition on 2.9.1981 and directed the parties to maintain status quo.

4. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.9.1981, the parties have exchanged their pleadings.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4, respondent no. 1-B, 2 and 3 was dismissed by Trial Court in proper manner after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law. He submitted that Additional Commissioner has decreed the plaintiff's suit in appeal without framing the point of determination as well as reversing the finding of fact recorded by Trial Court in proper manner. He submitted that second appeal filed by petitioners has been dismissed without considering the case as set up in second appeal. He submitted that in 1865 AD, there were only two plots and at present, there are 146 plots. He further submitted that Trial Court has