JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - After losing the case before all consolidation authorities the petitioners have filed this writ petition. So far as petitioners are concerned the dispute is confined to Khata No. 204 of the village in question which includes few plots. Earlier there was some dispute regarding pedigree as the pedigree set up by the petitioners was disputed and their predecessor Shiv Bhik who was not admitted to be brother of Shiv Dayal, i. e., predecessor of opposite parties, but later on it appears that it was admitted before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, that is why there is no dispute regarding pedigree. The following pedigree will be relevant : Pratit Shiv Dayal urf Dadaji Gur Prasad Gajadhar Prahlad Bhagwan Dass Ram Dass Orauni (disputed) Gurdin Bewa Umrai Shiv Bhikh Barsati Ram Mohan Ram Saran Girdhari Dhoom Hanoman 2. The petitioners filed objections claiming cotenancy rights over the Khata in dispute as the same was acquired from the time of common ancestor and the parties were in joint possession of the same and, in the alternative, sirdari rights over few plots were claimed. 3. The matter came before the Consolidations Officer before whom parties tendered oral and documentary evidence in support of their case. So far as khata in dispute is concerned the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed and the revision petition too met with the same fate. 4. There was no entry in the name of common ancestor, but in 1301 F the land in dispute was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal. In Khetauni 1314 F subdivisions of the plots were made and Khata No. 87/1 was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal, measuring 3 bighas 6 biswas 10 dhurs and khata No. 87/2 was entered in the name of Shiv Bhikh, son of Pratit, measuring 1 bigha 11 biswas and khata No. 87/3 and two more plots measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas 10 dhurs were entered in the name of Smt. Umrai, but consolidated land revenue of these three subdivisions was mentioned as Rs. 25/13/0. It appears that there was some private arrangement of partition which was also accepted by the Zamindar and that is why names of three branches were entered and subdivisions were indicated though area held by them was not equal. 25/13/0. It appears that there was some private arrangement of partition which was also accepted by the Zamindar and that is why names of three branches were entered and subdivisions were indicated though area held by them was not equal. In Ib28 F the three khatas measuring 6 bighas1 biswa, land revenue Rs. 33/14/ was entered in the name of Shiv Dayal, Jaman3 Matahatdari, but over few plots name of Mst. Umrai was entered as Gairkabiz and over few plots name of Shiv Bhikh was entered in that capacity. The entry in 1328F was obviously incorrect inasmuch as Shiv Dayal could not and did not become underproprietor, but this indicated only this much that name of Shiv Dayal was entered and Mst. Umrai and Shiv Bhikh were in possession over few plots. The number of plots have not been indicated in the judgment to show that these were very same plots which were entered in their respective names in 1314F. 5. On behalf of opposite parties three pattas were filed executed on 14th September, 1912, 31st August, 1919 and 15th October, 1927 to show that earlier name of Shiv Dayal was entered, but later on name of his sons were entered in 1927 with an area of 6 bighas18 biswas, land revenue Rs. 39/ and the plots were the same which were entered in 1328F in the name of Shiv Dayal. Duration of these pattas was 7 years. In Khatauni 1343F name of Girdhari, predecessor of the petitioners was entered over few plots. Subsequently an area of 6 bighas14 biswas was entered in the name of Gur Prasad with a duration of 9 years. In 1343F an area of 6 bighas5 biswas5 dhurs was entered in the name of Gur Prasad with a duration of three years which obviously was incorrect as in the earlier years duration was shown to be 9 years. In 1343F separate land measuring 3 bighas12 biswas15 dhurs with a duration of 9 years was entered in the name of Girdhari, predecessor of the petitioners and incidentally the duration was the same which was that of the Patta of Gur Prasad referred to above. The names of the petitioners were entered over few plots in some years in the remarks column of khetauni with date and diary and P. A. X also. In 1366F Dhoom was shown to be in possession over plots Nos. The names of the petitioners were entered over few plots in some years in the remarks column of khetauni with date and diary and P. A. X also. In 1366F Dhoom was shown to be in possession over plots Nos. 1624, 1625/1, 1625/2, 1706, 1715, 1725/1, with reference to date of Partal, diary number and P. A. X. The same entry continued in 1367F, 1368F, 1369F, 1370F, 1371F and 1372F. 6. The petitioners filed khetauni for 1355F, 1358F, 1359F, 1361F, 1362F, 1364F to 1368F, 1370F to 1372, 1370F, 1376F and 1377F and also filed land revenue receipts and irrigation slips for 1351F, 1352F, 1353F, 1355F, 1357F, 1358F, 1365F, 1370F, 1371F, 1374F and 1377F which were in the name of Prahlad or Gur Prasad, but payment was made by Dhoom or Ram Saran and their names were entered as Marfatdar. Oral evidence was also tendered by the parties. 7. The joint Director of Consolidation rejected the claim of cotenancy rights on the ground that there was no entry in the name of Pratit and land was acquired subsequently by Shiv Dayal or Gur Prasad by means of Pattas. While deciding the question of cotenancy rights the Joint Director of Consolidation considered that although the first entry was in the name of Shiv Dayal who was elder brother, but subsequently the land was entered in the names of three branches separately and the khata was subdivided and there was no entry in the names of Pratit. It may be that after the death of Smt. Umrai, who died issueless, the land was taken by Shiv Dayal and entry was made in his name, but so far as Shiv Bhikh is concerned, in 1314F the land was entered in his name which was found out in subsequent years and continued to remain in possession and over these plots they were also shown to be in possession in preabolition period, but that fact was not considered by the Joint Director of Consolidation. So far as cotenancy rights are concerned, after entry in 1314F they were not established, but if the petitioners continued to remain in possession during pre and post abolition period their possession over different plots was to be seen which was not done by the Joint Director of Consolidation. If they were not cotenants their possession was against the wishes of cotenureholders who even denied the pedigree. If they were not cotenants their possession was against the wishes of cotenureholders who even denied the pedigree. It is not the case of the parties that some time the successors of Shiv Dayal and Shiv Bhikh remained in possession and fight of possession was going on. The irrigation slips and the land revenue receipts were material, but the Joint Director of Consolidation has rejected the receipts on the ground that the same were not proved. The receipts were public documents and there was presumption regarding those which were 20 years old, and they could not have been lightly brushed aside. The statement of hostile witness is, undoubtedly, to be taken by caution, but that does not mean that it is to be discarded. Further, so far as Bhagwan Das is concerned, no doubt he was declared hostile, but it seems that as a matter of fact he himself has claimed cotenancy rights with Shiv Dayal's successor who appeared independently and not as a witness of the opposite parties which fact was not noticed. He was rightly or wrongly declared hostile. So far as possession is concerned it is within the domain of the Joint Director of Consolidation to take evidence obviously of persons who are in possession or of the witnesses who deposed regarding their possession. In view of the fact that relevant points which arise in this case were not considered and relevant evidence, particularly the irrigation receipts and land revenue receipts, were not considered and the relationship of the parties and their possession from before and the case as set up by them was not considered by the Joint Director of Consolidation, the order passed by him cannot be sustained. 8. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 2341979 (Annexure5) passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation is quashed and he is directed to restore the revision application to its original number and hear and decide the same in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. It is for the Joint Director of Consolidation or Deputy Director to consider as to whether the petitioners can claim right over the entire khata or only over that area which was entered in the name of their predecessor in 1314F and their possession over the same. There will be no order as to costs.