Heard Mr. R.S.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel.
In the instant case, the petitioners have claimed co-tenancy right with opposite parties 6 and 7 in the land in dispute that it is an ancestral property as it was acquired by all the five sons of Ram Saran; namely; Lala, Buddhu, Badal, Behair and Kunjal. Lala being eldest one and Karta of the family his name was recorded in the revenue records. He died issue-less, then Buddhu being the next eldest one and Karta of the family, his name was recorded in the revenue records . After his death, opposite party no.6 was recorded in the representative capacity, therefore, the petitioners as well as opposite parties 6 and 7 being members of the same family are entitled to inherit the property and land in dispute jointly. However, the original court i.e. Judicial Officer (Revenue) Bikapaur Tanda, Faizabad rejected the application by means of order dated 6.9.1972 with the finding that the petitioners have failed to prove that the land in dispute was acquired jointly with joint funds of the members of the family. The court of appeal has also observed that the petitioners have not been able to prove their possession over the land in dispute by producing any evidence therefor. They have also failed to prove that the land in dispute was coming down from the time of Lala being ancestor or Buddhu acquired it as a representative capacity of a joint family . They have also failed to prove their possession along with opposite parties. The same finding has been given by the revisional court. Thus the petitioners have lost their claims at all the stages. There is also one of the findings of the original court is that the land in dispute has not remained in original shape as its area and rent has been changed; whereas to establish the right of co-tenancy only it does not enough to show that the holdings belong to a common ancestor, but it is also to prove that the holding has come down in an identical condition and with an unbroken period before he can be held to be a co-tenant. There is concurrent finding of all the courts that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right of co-tenancy.
Upon perusal of the documents, I do not find error in the orders impugned .
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010 GSY