ORDER 1. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 2. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1072 OF 1980 DATED 20-10-1989. 3. THE APPELLANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS HAD A COMMON ANCESTOR, GIRVAR D SINGH. THE DISPUTE RELATES TO TWO KHATA NUMBERS, NAMELY, KHATAS NOS. 122 AND 480 IN VILLAGE ASARWAN, PARGANA MIRENPURA, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT SULTANPUR, U.P. BETWEEN TWO BRANCHES OF GIRVAR SINGH. HE LEFT THREE SONS. THERE IS NO SURVIVING MEMBER OF ONE OF HIS SONS RAM LAL SINGH. THE BRANCHES OF TWO OF THE OTHER SONS KALI SINGH AND BINDHUA SINGH ARE LITIGATING ABOUT SHARES IN THE SAID TWO KHATAS. THOSE KHATAS WERE RECORDED IN THE NAME OF HAR NARAIN SINGH AS BHUMIDHAR AND SIRDAR RESPECTIVELY. ON PUBLICATION OF THE RECORD UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE U.P. CONSOLIDATION OF HOLDINGS ACT, OBJECTIONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND OTHERS CLAIMING CO-TENANCY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LANDS WERE ANCESTRAL. THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER HELD THAT BINDESHWARI SINGH WHO IS CLAIMING THROUGH KALI SINGH BRANCH WAS CO-TENANT IN BOTH THE KHATAS. THE SAID KHATAS WERE CLAIMED BY THE CONTESTING F RESPONDENTS REPRESENTING THE BRANCH OF BINDHUA SINGH AS THEIR EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY. ON APPEAL THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY. THE CLAIM OF EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID KHATAS WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BY ORDER DATED 18-2-1980. THAT ORDER WAS ASSAILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT IN THE AFOREMENTIONED WRIT PETITION. THE HIGH COURT DID HOLD THAT IN EXERCISE OF 9 JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION IT WOULD NOT GO INTO THE QUESTIONS OF FACTS BY REAPPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE; HOWEVER, IT NOTED THAT AS THE RESPONDENT WAS A MORTGAGEE OF THE PLOTS IN QUESTION AND HAD DEPOSITED FIVE TIMES THE RENT HE THEREFORE BECAME A HEREDITARY TENANT AND THEREAFTER A SIRDAR. IT FOUND THAT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, COMMITTED A MANIFEST ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE PLOTS MORTGAGED WERE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY AND ON THAT BASIS ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION DULY SETTING ASIDE THE CONCURRENT ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE HIGH COURT REGARDING ACQUIRING OF SIRDARI RIGHT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 4. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CONSOLIDATION OFFICER IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIND SUPPORT FOR THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE HIGH COURT REGARDING ACQUIRING OF SIRDARI RIGHT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, TO THE EXTENT INDICATED ABOVE, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.