Judgment S.R. Singh, J. 1. These two writ petitions are connected petitions and have been filed impugning the one and the same order dated 17-8-1977 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh in certain connected revisions preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-9-1972 passed by the Asstt. Settlement Officer, Consolidation Azamgarh in respect of the land comprising basic Khatauni Khata no. 82 and 142 of village Pakardinna pergana Atraulia Tahsil Phulpur District Azamgarh. The questions of law and fact involved in these pensions being identical, they are being disposed of by a common order for which the learned counsel for the parties are agreeable. 2. Matrix of the facts is that Bans Bahadur Singh Petitioner in writ petition No. 1001 of 1977, was recorded as exclusive tenure holder of the land comprising Basic Khata No. 82, while the khata No. 142 stood recorded in the names of Bans Bahadur Singh and Smt. Utraji and Smt. Talukraji arrayed as party respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition filed by Bans Bahadur Singh and another. On publication of statement of principle, an objection was filed by Bans Bahadur Singh accompanied by a prayer to expunge the names of Smt. Utraji and Talukrajl from Khata no. 142. Smt Utraji and Talukraji also filed their respective objections claiming themselves to be the co- tenure holders in Khata No. 82 and contesting at the same time the objections filed by Bans Bahadur Singh who claimed exclusive right in Khata no. 142 The Consolidation Officer allowed objections preferred by Bans Bahadur Singh and rejected the one filed on behalf of Smt Utraji and Smt Talukraji. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Consolidation officer, Smt. Utraji and Smt. Talukraji went up in appeal which they filed separately. The appeals preferred by Smt. Utraji and Smt. Talukraji ended up in dismissal by means of the judgment and order dated 11-9-1972 passed by Asstt. Settlement Officer Consolidation. On the appeals being dismissed, Smt. Utraji and Talukraji preferred revisions under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions and held Bans Bahadur Singh as exclusive tenure holder in respect of plots 896/1, area 218 kari, 345, area 138 Karl. 120g/2, area 140 Kari 231 area 103 Kari and 2318, area 83 Kari. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revisions and held Bans Bahadur Singh as exclusive tenure holder in respect of plots 896/1, area 218 kari, 345, area 138 Karl. 120g/2, area 140 Kari 231 area 103 Kari and 2318, area 83 Kari. The name of Bans Bahadur Singh was expunged from the remaining plots in dispute and Smt. Talukraji was held to have 1/4th share while Mst. Utraji, Vedhnath and indra Dei together were give 3/4th share therein. The present writ petitions are directed against the aforesaid orders. The writ petition filed by Talukraji pertains to five plots which have been exclusively given to Bans Bahadur Singh while the writ petition filed by Bans Bahadur Singh is in respect of all the plots of the two Khatas in dispute excepting the five plots of which he has been declared by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the exclusive tenure holder. 3. Admittedly, the land in dispute was the acquisition of Jas Karan Singh and Raja Ram Singh, sons of Lalla Singh. The family tree showing the relationship between Bans Bahadur on one hand and Smt. Utraji and Talukraji on the other, is set out as below in so far as it is necessary for the purposes of unfolding the controversy involved in the case Sumeran Singh ............. Lalla Singh Philla Singh Baljit Singh Daljit Singh --------------------- Bedhan Singh Raja Ram Jaskaran Bhagwan Dei Ram Garib Singh Singh Singh (daughter) (son) (son) Bans Bahadur Singh Talukraji Utrajl (daughter) (daughter) 4. It is worthwhile to mention that there was no controversy about correctness of the aforesaid family pedigree with the exception that Bhagwan Devi was the sister of Raja Ram Singh and Jas Haran Singh and also that Ram Garib Singh was the son of Bandhan Singh. Admittedly, the property in dispute was the joint acquisition of Raja Ram and Jas Karan, sons of Baljit Singh. Jas Karan Singh breathed his last in the year 1939, while Raja Ram died in the year 1943. Admittedly, the property in dispute was the joint acquisition of Raja Ram and Jas Karan, sons of Baljit Singh. Jas Karan Singh breathed his last in the year 1939, while Raja Ram died in the year 1943. The case set up by Bans Bahadur Singh was that Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Bandhan Singh and that Jas Karan Singh pre-deceased Raja Ram Singh in a state of jointness and therefore, the Interest of Jas Karan Singh devolved upon Raja Ram Singh and after the death of Raja Rara Singh, Ram Gharib Singh inherited the property being the proximate heir of Raja Ram Singh, according to the personal law. On the other hand, the case unfolded by Taluk Raji was that she alongwith her sister Utrajl inherited the share of their father Jas Karan Singh, who had parted with his brother Raja Ram Singh before his death and further that Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Raja Ram Singh and Jas Karan Singh and therefore, the interest of Raja Ram Singh devolved upon Bhagwan Dei who died in the year 1957 and after her death, her interest in the holding devolved upon the daughters of Jas Karan Singh by survivorship under section 175 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Smt. Talukraji and Smt. Utraji also claimed the share of Raja Ram Singh on the basis of a will executed by Raja Ram Singh, Sri V.C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for Bans Bahadur Singh raised the same very controversy which was agitated before the Consolidation authorities. 5. So far as the question as to whether Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Raja Ram Singh and Jas Karan Singh and the question as to whether Ram Gharib Singh was the son of Bandhan Singh are concerned, both these questions are no longer res-integra in view of the judgment dated 18-12-1963 of City Muasif Azamgarh in suit no. 299 of 1962. Ram Gharib Singh v. Utraji Kunwar which was maintained in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 30th November 1955 rendered by 1st Additional Civil Judge Azamgarh In Civil appeal No. 99 of 1964 preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, passed in original suit no 299 of 1962. 299 of 1962. Ram Gharib Singh v. Utraji Kunwar which was maintained in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 30th November 1955 rendered by 1st Additional Civil Judge Azamgarh In Civil appeal No. 99 of 1964 preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsif, passed in original suit no 299 of 1962. It was held by the learned Munsif in the above mentioned suit that Ram Gharib Singh was the son of Bandhan Singh and that Bhagwan Dei was the slater of Raja Ram Singh and Jas Karan Singh The said suit was in respect of a house pro-party of which Raja Ram Singh and las Karan Singh were the owners. Ram Gharib Singh father of Bansh Bahadur Singh staked his claim in respect of the said house on the ground that Raja Ram Singh and Jas Karan Singh constituted a joint Hindu family and Jas Karan Singh predeceased Raja Ram Singh in the state of jointness with the latter and upon the death of Jas Karan Singh, his interest devolved upon Raja Ram Singh, on whose death in 1943, Ram Gharib Singh plaintiff in the said suit, claimed to have inherited the interest of Raja Ram Singh being his proximate heir. It was alleged that Bhagwan Dei lived in the house till her death in April 1957 as a licensee of the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff took possession of the house. It was also alleged that Smt. Utraji Kunwar being the daughter of Jas Karan Singh was permitted to occupy the house. In October 1962 as a licensee but, she started asserting her title over the suit property, hence the necessity arose for filing the suit. It was also alleged that Smt. Utraji Kunwar being the daughter of Jas Karan Singh was permitted to occupy the house. In October 1962 as a licensee but, she started asserting her title over the suit property, hence the necessity arose for filing the suit. Smt. Utraji contested the said suit inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff was not the son of Bandhan Singh, that Raja Ram and Jas Karan Singh lived separately, that Raja Ram Singh executed a Will in favour of the defendant in respect of ail his properties, while the interest of Jas Karan Singh devolved upon his daughter including the defendant and that Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Raja Ram Singh and Jas Karan Singh and also that there was a litigation between Bhagwan Dei and the defendant but it was compromised and the interest of Raja Ram Singh was divided in halves between them and further that the plaintiff Ram Garib Singh was the heir neither of Raja Ram Singh nor of Bhagwan Dei. The suit ended in dismissal by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18-12-1963 on the findings inter-alia that upon the death of Jas Karan Singh, his interest devolved upon his daughters and they were recorded in the revenue papers alongwith Raja Ram Singh, that the share of Raja Ram Singh was divided in halves between Bhagwan Dei and Smt. Utraji in mutation case no. 63/59 of 1943, that Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Raja Ram Signh and that Ram Gharib Singh, though son of Bandhan Singh, was not entitled to inherit the interest of Raja Ram Singh in preference to Bhagwan Dei. The decision of the Civil court on the question of relationship would thus operate as resjudicata and it is now not open to Bans Bahadur Singh to plead that Bhagwan Dei was the sister of Bandhan Singh, nor it is open to Taluk Rajito propound that Ram Gharib Singh was not the son of Bandhan Singh. 6. It transpires from the record that Ram Gharib Singh instituted a suit, it being suit no. 236 of 1955 in the court of Munsif City Azamgarh for declaration that he was the Bhumidhar of the suit land which comprised the Khatas in dispute. Smt. Utraji Kunwar, her son Bedhnath Singh and Mst. 6. It transpires from the record that Ram Gharib Singh instituted a suit, it being suit no. 236 of 1955 in the court of Munsif City Azamgarh for declaration that he was the Bhumidhar of the suit land which comprised the Khatas in dispute. Smt. Utraji Kunwar, her son Bedhnath Singh and Mst. Bhagwan Del, were arrayed as defendants in the said suit The suit was decided by a decree dated 7-7-1938 in terms of the compromise dated 14-10-55 according to which Bans Bahadur Singh was given exclusive right in respect of the five plots which had been given to him under the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the parties have been at pains to wriggle out of the compromise decree. According to Sri Bans Bahadur Singh, the said decree was fraudulent and illegal and that it was not given effect to either in the revenue papers or on the spot as would be evident from the averments made in paragraph 11 of writ petition No. 1001 of 1977. Smt. Talukraji seeks to shake off the compromise decree on the ground that he was not a party to the suit or to the compromise on the basis of which the suit was decreed. So far as the plea of compromise decree belag fraudulent and illegal as set up by Bans Bahadur Singh in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, is concerned, suffice it to say that in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, filed by Smt. Jaifra Kunwar, petitioner no. 2 in writ petition no. 1001 of 1975, it has been averred that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of the compromise being binding to the petitioner and the same would operate as estoppel and was correct and based on appraisal of the record. It has further been averred in the said paragraph of the counter affidavit that "the compromise decree was pleaded to operate as estoppel and there was sufficient evidence to prove the same. It has further been averred in the said paragraph of the counter affidavit that "the compromise decree was pleaded to operate as estoppel and there was sufficient evidence to prove the same. The parties being quite alive to the fact and law and the contention of each other even the absence of issue would not matter." It may be pertinent to mention here that in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Writ petition No. 1227 of 1977, Smt. Taluk Raji v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, it has been averred that the Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in holding that the compromise decree would operate as estoppel inasmuch as the plea of estoppel was not taken nor was any issue framed on the point. It was in reply to these averments that Smt. Jaifra Kunwar stated in her affidavit that the compromise decree was binding on the parties. In my opinion, therefore, the petitioner Bans Bahadur Singh cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath and in view of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed in writ petition No. 1227 of 1977 the petitioner Bans Bahadur Singh and his mother Jaifra cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the compromise decree. 7. On the question as to whether the compromise decree operates as resjudicata or not, it has been held by the Supreme Court in 'Shanker Slta Ram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352 as under : "It is well settled that a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum. 7. On the question as to whether the compromise decree operates as resjudicata or not, it has been held by the Supreme Court in 'Shanker Slta Ram Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352 as under : "It is well settled that a consent decree is as binding upon the parties thereto as a decree passed by invitum. The compromise having been found not to be vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation, misunderstanding or mistake, the decree passed thereon has the binding force of res judicata----" In Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. The State of Orissa, 1956 SC 346, the Supreme Court has held as under : "....a judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel between the parties as a judgment whereby the court exercises its mind on a contested case...." In Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. ONion Bank of India, JT 1991 (4) SC 15 at page 30, the Supreme Court after noticing the aforesaid previous decision of its own, has laid down the law on the question as below : "A judgment by consent is intended to stop litigation between the parties just as much as a judgment resulting from a decision of the court at the end of a long drawn out fight. A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment. As stated by Spencer Bower and Turner in Res Judicata, Second Edition, page 37. "Any judgment or order which in other respects answers to the description of a res-judicata is nonetheless so because it was made in pursuance of the consent and agreement of the parties . . . . A compromise decree creates an estoppel by judgment. As stated by Spencer Bower and Turner in Res Judicata, Second Edition, page 37. "Any judgment or order which in other respects answers to the description of a res-judicata is nonetheless so because it was made in pursuance of the consent and agreement of the parties . . . . Accordingly, judgment orders and awards by consent have always been held no less efficacious as estoppels than other judgments orders, or decisions, though doubts have been occasionally expressed whether, strictly, the foundation of the estoppel in such cases is not representation by conduct, rather than res judicata...." In Subha Rao v. Jagnandha Rao, AIR 1967 SC 591 , it has no doubt been held by the Supreme Court that a compromise decree does not operate as resjudicata for the reasons that such a decree cannot strictly be regarded as a decision on a matter which was heard and finally decided and that the decree might create estoppel by conduct between the parties provided it is pleaded and proved that is to say that such a decree might operate as estoppel by conduct between the parties. It is evident from the report in Subha Rao's case (supra) that the previous decisions in AIR 1954 SC 352 , was not noticed by the Supreme Court, while deciding the case of Subha Rao. However, there is little difference between estoppel by conduct of parties and estoppel by record known as res judicata based on a compromise decree and in view of the fact stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed in writ petition no 1227 of 1977, it is not open for Bans Bahadur Singh and his mother Smt. Jaifra Kunwar to wriggle out of the compromise decree. So far as Smt. Talukraji is concerned, it is true that she was not a party to the compromise decree but in the facts and circumstances of the case, she would be deemed to have been effectively presented through her own sister Smt. Utraji in suit no. 236 of 1955 which was decided in terms of a compromise and since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has believed the compromise. I am not prepared to set at naught the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation based on compromise decree passed in suit no. 236 of 1955 which was decided in terms of a compromise and since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has believed the compromise. I am not prepared to set at naught the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation based on compromise decree passed in suit no. 236 of 1955 inasmuch as the acceptance of the compromise settles the family dispute and a long-drawn litigation between the parties. 8. Sri V.C. Misra, learned counsel appearing for Bans Bahadur Singh, however, urged that his clients perfected right by adverse possession, in that their possession was maintained in proceeding under section 145 CrPC vide orders dated 3-3-65 and 23-11-65 and no suit was filed for their ejectment within the period of limitation prescribed by law. The legal position Is not in doubt that if a suit for ejectment of a person in whose favour proceedings under section 145 CrPC have been decided, is not filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law, the right, title or interest of the real tenure holder may extinguish by virtue of section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act, but in the present case soon after the orders were passed in favour of Bans Bahadur Singh in proceedings under section 145 CrPC a suit it being suit no. 982 of 1965. was filed by Smt Taluk Raji Kunwar against Smt Jaifra alias Kamla widow of Ram Gharib Singh and Bans Bahadur Singh son of Sri Ram Gharib Singh impleading Smt. Utraji, Bedhnath Singh and Indra Dai as defendants 2, 3 and 4 and Gaon Sabha and State as defendants 5 and 6 in the court of Parganadheesh Phulpur Azamgarh for a declaration under section 229-B of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 with the relief of possession in the alternative. The suit was in respect of all the plots comprising both the Khatas in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial court as well as by the Additional Commissioner but the second appeal was pending at the time of the commencement of the Consolidation proceedings in the village a/id accordingly the suit abated. Earlier Smt. Utraji had also filed a suit, it being suit no 639 of 1957 in the court of Munsif City Azamgarh against Ram Gharib Singh for declaration of her 1/4th share in the plots in dispute and for possession in the alternative. Earlier Smt. Utraji had also filed a suit, it being suit no 639 of 1957 in the court of Munsif City Azamgarh against Ram Gharib Singh for declaration of her 1/4th share in the plots in dispute and for possession in the alternative. The suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment dated 28-2-61 and the decree was maintained by the appellate court but the suit abated under section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on account of abatement of consolidation proceedings at the second appellate stage, in the High Court. These facts have been found by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the basis of material on record. Therefore on these facts, the plea of acquisition on rights under section 210 by Bans Bahadur Singh and his mother Smt. Jaifra Kunwar cannot be accepted. Bans Bahadur Singh acquired no right on account of continuance in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the orders passed in his favour under section 145 CrPC and on the facts found by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, he could not inherit Raja Ram Singh either under the personal law or under the tenancy law. He has been given five plots on the basis of the compromise decree in suit no 236 of 1955 and Is not entitled to anything more. Smt. Taluk Raji, as held above, is also bound by compromise decree and cannot be permitted to challenge the right, title or interest of Bans Bahadur Singh based on compromise decree passed in suit no. 236 of 1955. In the result, both the petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs. 9. While the judgment was going to be delivered, Sri V.C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Bans Bahadur Singh tried to urge that no such suit as suit no. 982 of 1965 was filed by Smt. Taluk Raji, as referred to in the judgments of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director Consolidation and consequently, it was urged that no suit for eviction having been filed after the orders under section 145 CrPC the petitioner Bans Bahadur Singh shall be held as having perfected his right by adverse possession. 10. 10. Since the recital in the appellate judgment as well as in the judgment of the revisional Court to the effect that the suit referred to above was filed, has not been challenged in the writ petition filed by Bans Bahadur Singh, I proceeded with delivery of judgment accepting the facts as stated la the judgments, to be correct. Sri V.C. Misra has produced a questionaire indicating thereby that no entry of suit no. 982 finds place in the Missil Band Register. As stated, this fact having not been challenged in the writ petition, I am not inclined to entertain the said document vis-a-vis the fact that the document aforesaid, without any pleading in the writ petition and without the same having been filed with an affidavit, cannot be accepted.