JUDGMENT V. Kumar, C. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act made by the Commissioner, Kumanun Division, Nanital dated February 9, 1973 recommending that the order of the trial court be set aside. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that Laxmi Narain and Ramesh, sons of Sipahi Lal and Smt. Champia moved an application for recording their names alongwith Ram Prakash over the land in dispute. Ram Prakash filed objections on the grounds that the displuted land was entered in the name of his father and after his death the name of the objector has been entered. After considering the evidence of the parties the trial court allowed the application vide his order dated October 25, 1972. Being aggrieved by this order of the trial court Ram Prakash went in revision revision before the Commissioner, Nainital who has recommended for setting aside the order of the trial court dated October 25, 1972. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the entry in favour of the revisionist's father Lachman Prasad was coming down since the last 20 years and after his death the name of his son Ram Prakash, revisionist was entered under the order of the Tahsildar dated January 14, 1970. Such a long standing entry cannot be corrected in these summary proceedings of correction of papers under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the ruling reported in 1966 R.D. 10. The learned counsel further urged that Smt. Champia one of the opposite parties filed objections in the mutation case which was rejected and the mutation was allowed in the name of the revisionist by the Tahsildar vide his order dated January 14, 1970. Since no appeal or revision was filed by Smt. Champia against that order she has no locus standi to re agitate the matter in correction proceedings. Since no appeal or revision was filed by Smt. Champia against that order she has no locus standi to re agitate the matter in correction proceedings. The learned counsel lastly urged that the plea of the opposite parties that Lachman Prasad acquired the land in suit as a Karta of joint Hindu family and as such they have also got a share in it being a real brother of Lachman Prasad and members of joint Hindu family is a complicated question of title which cannot to be decided in these summary proceedings of correction which are meant to correct only clerical errors and commissions. The learned Commissioner has rightly recommended for setting aside the order of the trial court which should be accepted. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the opposite party urged that the revisionist entered into an agreement on July 14, 1970 with the opposite party Smt. Champia in respect of this very land in which he has divided the land with Smt. Champia in equal share. There is another agreement of the revisionist with Laxmi Narain that his uncle Laxmi Narain, opposite party will realize the rent of Calendar machine standing on the land in dispute from Suresh Chandra Rastogi as he realized previously in the time of his father Lachhman Prasad. It is thus clear that Lachhman Prasad had acquired the property as a Karta of joint Hindu family for the benefit of all its members. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 are admittedly brothers of Lachhman Prasad and Smt. Champia, opposite party No. 3 is mother of Lachhman Prasad and as such they have their share in the land in dispute. All these agreements amount to a family settlement and binding on all the parties. The learned counsel further urged that Smt. Sushila Devi, sister of the revisionist, Ram Prakash, had filed an affidavit before the trial court that her father Lachhman Prasad was Karta of a joint Hindu family of Lachhman Prasad was recorded over all the immovable property. Her brother Ram Prakash, uncles Laxmi Narian and Ramesh and grand mother Smt. Champia have share in the disputed land. Her brother is dishonestly trying to deprive the other members from their share. Her brother Ram Prakash, uncles Laxmi Narian and Ramesh and grand mother Smt. Champia have share in the disputed land. Her brother is dishonestly trying to deprive the other members from their share. Lastly the learned counsel urged that where the existing entries are disputed it is desirable that enquiry may be made on the accuracy of the existing entries and correct decision arrived at. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied on the ruling reported in 1940 R.D. 4. 6. I have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the revisionist that long standing entries cannot be corrected in these summary proceedings of correction is quite correct but this rule cannot be laid down for all types of cases. The facts of each case differ from the other. In the present case it is clearly proved that the opposite parties are the members of the joint Hindu family of which Lachhman Prasad, father of the revisionist being the senior most member was the Karta and the property was acquired in his name. It is also clear that the members of the family are deriving benefit from the property in their respective shares. The agreement deeds executed by the revisionist Ram Prakash are in the nature of family settlement and binding on the parties. Smt. Sushila Devi, real sister of the revisionist Ram Prakash in her affidavit has also clearly stated about the correct affairs of the family. In these circumstances the trial court was justified in ordering mutation of the names of the opposite parties alongwith the name of the revisionist. There is no illegality of irregularity in his order. The view of the learned Commissioner is incorrect and I am unable to agree with him. 7. In the result, I discharge the reference and uphold the order of the S.D.O, Kashipur dated October 25, 1972.