JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. The facts given by the parties may first be stated in brief. Plot no. 796 (area 1610) of Khata no. 231 of village Khandawa, Pargana, Rampur, District Pratapgarh was recorded in the basic year in the name of opposite party no. 2. The petitioners who claim themselves to be cotenure holders of the said plot, filed objection pleading, inter alia, that the plot in question which corresponded in plot no. 616 of the second settlement, was ancestral property of the parties. The petitioners set up a pedigree which has been reproduced in para 5 of the petition. Sukhai was the common ancestor of the parties and the land in dispute is said to have come down from him in identical form. 2. The case stated by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer was denied by the opposite party no. 2, who pleaded that in respect of the land in question there was a fresh settlement and, therefore, the land ceased to be ancestral property from the time of the second settlement. Opposite party no. 2 relied on Patta executed by the then Zamindar in favour of Ram Das, father of opposite party no. 2. 3. It appears that on an earlier occasion, a suit was filed by the petitioners against opposite party no. 2, in the Court of Judicial Officer, but the suit was dismissed and opposite party no. 2 alone was held to be the tenure holder of the land in dispute. The suit was ultimately abated at the appellate stage on account of the consolidation proceedings. 4. The objections filed by the petitioners under section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide his judgment and order dated 226973 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the petition. The Consolidation Officer held that the petitioners were the cotenure holders with opposite party no. 2. The appeal which was filed by opposite party no.2 was dismissed by the Settlement officer(Consolidation) by his judgment and order dated 6121977 The finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer was upheld. Opposite Party no. 2 thereafter filed a revision which was allowed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 1551978, which is contained in annexure3 to the writ petition. It was held by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation that the opposite party no. Opposite Party no. 2 thereafter filed a revision which was allowed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation by his judgment and order dated 1551978, which is contained in annexure3 to the writ petition. It was held by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation that the opposite party no. 2 was the sole tenure holder of the plot in question and that the petitioners had no right or title in the said plot. 5. The petitioners have now approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the plot was admittedly recorded in the basic year in the name of Sukhai, the common ancestor of the parties, and the pedigree set up by the petitioners before the Consolidation Officer was not challenged by the opposite party no. 2, the District Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in recording the finding that the petitioners were not cotenure holders with opposite party no. 2, particularly when it was found by the Consolidation Officer and also by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the land had come down from the time of the common ancestor of the parties in identical form. It has also been contended by the learned counsel that a Patta was executed in favour of Sukhai, the common ancestor of the parties, and since there is no proof that Sukhai was evicted by the Zamindar from the plot in question at any time subsequent to the grant of Patta or that he had surrendered his rights, his heirs, after his death, became cotenure holders and continue to be coteuure holders of the plot in question. 6. The Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer(consolidation) have decided the case on the basis that the plot in question was once recorded in the name of Sukhai who was the common ancestor of the parties, and as such it was the ancestral property of the parties. The petitioners, therefore, are the cotenure holders. It was not established that Sukhai or his sons were at any time evicted by the Zamindar from the land in question and, therefore, it was not possible for the Zamindar to settle the land afresh in favour of another person. The petitioners, therefore, are the cotenure holders. It was not established that Sukhai or his sons were at any time evicted by the Zamindar from the land in question and, therefore, it was not possible for the Zamindar to settle the land afresh in favour of another person. For this purpose the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have placed reliance upon a decision of the Chief Court of Oudh rendered in the ca e of Ram Shanker v. Nandan Prasad and others (1927 Oudh Weekly Notes, 177) in which it was laid down that where all the sharers succeed to the interest in common ancestral property and continue to hold the same in common, the mere fact that the landlord granted the land to one of the sharers would not have the effect of ejecting the cotenants or depriving them of their rights, unless the cotenants were found to have either relinquished or abandoned the land. 7. The decisions rendered by the Consolidation Officer as also by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have been upset by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, opposite party no. 1 on the ground that one of the cosharers, namely Badri had not been impleaded by the petitioners as a party in the proceedings and that the opposite party no. 2 had not claimed any share in the land in village Sarai Bhagmani which was recorded in the name of the petitioners. The Deputy Director of Consolidation also came to the conclusion that the land revenue which was earlier paid for the land in question was different than that paid from the time of third settlement. 8. A perusal of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer indicates that it was found by him that the area of the disputed land earlier was 1.11.18 out of which some land had been utilised in the construction of a well. It was on account of the well that the area of the plot in question had been reduced. The Consolidation Officer also found that the land revenue of the land in question was earlier Rs. 9 and 13 Annas which has been increased to Rs.13.00. It was on account of the well that the area of the plot in question had been reduced. The Consolidation Officer also found that the land revenue of the land in question was earlier Rs. 9 and 13 Annas which has been increased to Rs.13.00. Since there was a valid explanation of the Consolidation Officer for the reduction of the area of the plot in question, it was not proper for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to hold on that basis as also on the basis of the change of the rate of land revenue that the land in question was not ancestral. 9. The Consolidation Officer has also found that the patta in question was executed in favour of Ram Das. It had not been mentioned as to how the Zamindar entered into a fresh contract with Ram Das who was then a minor, particularly when other cosharers were available. It was also not established that the petitioners or their father, at any time earlier, had either surrendered their rights or relinquished their rights or that they were evicted from the land in question by the Zamindar. 10. The question of nonjoinder of any other cosharer in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer does not appear to have been raised on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Badri who was the son of Jiyawan had not claimed any rights in the Khata in question. The petitioners, claiming to be cotenure holders of the land in dispute, had filed necessary objection against opposite party no. 2 Badri, who had not filed objections before the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation), would not, therefore, be a necessary party and the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have legally relied upon this circumstance also for upsetting the judgment passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Moreover, it is the settled principle of law that nonjoinder of necessary party would not have the effect of nonsuiting the plaintiff at the trial. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation was of the opinion that Badri was necessary party, he should have, even at that stage, directed the impleadment of Badri in the proceedings. 11. The Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have relied upon extremely relevant circumstances in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were cotenure holders in the land in dispute. 11. The Consolidation Officer as also the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) have relied upon extremely relevant circumstances in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were cotenure holders in the land in dispute. The Deputy Director of Consolidation does not appear to have considered those circumstances or the questions which were considered by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were cotenure holders. In these circumstances the judgment and order dated 15.5.1978 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. 12. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.5.78 is hereby quashed and the case is remanded to him to decide it afresh in the light of the observation made above and in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be entitled to their costs. [Petition allowed]