JUDGMENT R.L. Gulathi, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of PI old in gs Act. 2. One Khushal had two sons, Gur Dutt and Kunj Behari. Ram Manorath was a descendant of Gur Dutt, while the opposite parties Nos. 4 to 8 are the descendants of the other branch of Kunj Behari. Ram Manorath was the tenure holder of Bhumidhari land of Khata Neill and tenancy land comprised in Khata Nos. 246 and 275 in village Khusahna, Pargana Ikona, Tahsil and District Bahraich. Ram Manorath had two wives, Smt. Pala and Smt. Raj Dei. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the daughters of Smt. Pala and Smt. Raj Dei respectively. After the death of Ram Manorath the name of his two widows, Smt. Pala and Smt. Raj Dei were entered over the said Khatas. Smt. Ram Dei also died and the land came to be recorded in the name of Smt. Pala alone. Her name was recorded over the three Khatas in the basic year, i.e. Bhumidhari land or Khata No. Ill and Sirdari land of the remaining two Khatas Nos. 246 and 275. During the Consolidation proceedings Smt. Pala also died. It appears that in the year 1956 Smt. Pala had entered into an agreement with the opposite parties in which it was stipulated that after her death her holding will be divided between the opposite parties according to the shares specified therein. The opposite parties laid claim to the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid document which they described as a will. This claim was resisted by the two petitioners. The Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the opposite parties but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found the document to be effective and he recorded the Bhumidhari holdings in the names of the aforesaid parties, but the Sirdari holdings were entered in the names of the petitioners. Both the parties went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who held-that the document was not a will, but a family arrangement. 3. Now, there is no dispute that the petitioners and the opposite parties came from a common ancestor. But before there can be a family settlement, it must be shown that the property in dispute was jointly owned by the members of the family. There is no such finding on the record. 3. Now, there is no dispute that the petitioners and the opposite parties came from a common ancestor. But before there can be a family settlement, it must be shown that the property in dispute was jointly owned by the members of the family. There is no such finding on the record. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has merely observed that the land in dispute must have been ancestral. This observation is not supported by any evidence and cannot be accepted. Once it is found that the land in dispute was ancestral or joint, the question of family settlement does not arise. The deed cannot operate as a transfer because Sirdari rights cannot be transferred and no co-tenancy rights can be created by an agreement. That apart the agreement lacks consideration. At best it can be called as some sort of a gift, but as the deed was not registered, it cannot be treated to be a valid gift deed. As such the document in question could not confer any title on the opposite parties either in respect of Bhumidhari land or in respect of Sirdari land. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is therefore, patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. His order is accordingly quashed. 4. As regards the connected writ petition it is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the same is misconceived. This petition relates to Sirdari land only. The dispute with regard to the Sirdari land was decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation along with the Bhumidhari land, once that order is quashed the connected writ petition which relates to Sirdari land becomes infructuous. 5. In the result, writ petition No. 57 of 1969 is allowed and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated September 17, 1968 (Annexure 5) is quashed. The connected writ petition No. 69 of 1969/is dismissed. The petitioners are entitled to one set of costs only.