JUDGMENT Hon’ble Janardan Sahai, J.—Gangoo Rai was the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, Deepan Rai, Ram Naresh Rai and Jagar Seth Rai. The petitioners are the descendants of Jagar Seth Rai. The contesting respondents are the descendants of the other two branches. The dispute relates to the land in village Gadua Maqsoodpur. In the basic year these lands were recorded in the names of Ram Briksh Rai, Raj Net Rai, Ras Karan Rai, sons of Deepan Rai, Tannoo Rai, Deo Nath Rai and Bhola Hai descendants of all the three branches. Objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by Bhola Rai the petitioners predecessor claiming sale tenancy rights. It is not in dispute that these plots were fixed rate tenancy plots of Amrit Rai. His daughter Jinsa Kunwar was married to Jagar Seth Rai ancestor of the petitioners. On the death of Amrit Rai and his widow Lakhna Kunwar the plots in dispute were succeeded to by their daughter Jinsa Kunwar, the wife of Jagar Seth Rai. As the lands were fixed rate tenancy land and came from the wife’s side of Jagar Seth Rai, they were liable to be treated as self-acquired properly and would have passed on by succession within the branch of Jagar Seth Rai alone. On the death of Jinsa Kunwar, her son, Vibhuti Rai father of Bhola Rai succeeded as sole tenant. 2. The case of the contesting respondents is that on the death of Amrit Rai and Lakhna Kunwar the Zamindar claimed the properties in dispute, which gave rise to a litigation which was fought out by Joint Hindu Family of the three branches and with joint family funds and it was with the efforts of the Joint Hindu Family that the land could come into the hands of Jinsa Kunwar. According to the contesting respondents the Joint Hindu Family was possessed of certain other lands and Vibhuti Rai had put the plots in dispute into the common hotch pot and the plots in dispute thus were stamped with the character of Hindu Undivided Family property. The case of the contesting respondents found favour with the Consolidation Officer who dismissed the objections of Bhola Rai. The case of the contesting respondents found favour with the Consolidation Officer who dismissed the objections of Bhola Rai. The appeal against the order filed by Bhola Rai met with the same fate and the revision too against that order was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur on 24.6.2000. The evidence which was considered by the authorities below consisted of documentary as well as oral evidence. On 26.1.12 a deed of Dastabardari (surrender) was executed by Vibhuti Rai. In the introductory portion of the deed there is an admission of Ram Naresh Rai and Deepan Rai (of the other two branches) having a share in the disputed land. There is a recital in the deed that as the land was recorded solely in the name of Vibhuti Rai the deed was being executed for assurance of Ram Naresh and Deepan Rai lest the successors of Vibhuti Rai lay claim to the plots as their own exclusive land. The deed also bears a recital of Vibhuti Rai giving exclusive possession over a substantial portion of the disputed lands to the other two branches. Vibhuti Rai died in the year 1957. On his death a mutation case was filed. In that mutation case a compromise was entered into. In the compromise application by Bhola Rai and descendants of the other two branches it was agreed that the lands in dispute are joint Family land and were entered in the name of Vibhuti Rai as peshwa khandan and that the lands be recorded in the names of all the branches in the revenue records. The compromise was acted upon and the names of the descendants of all the three branches were consequently recorded. The authorities below have considered various facts which go to prove that the family was treating the land in dispute as Joint Hindu Family Land. Ram Briksha Rai the son of Deepan Rai had taken a loan for constructing a well on one of these plots of village Gadua Maqsoodpur. Tunnu Rai a descendent in the branch of Ram Naresh Rai had also taken taqabi loan in village Gadua Maqsoodpur and Bhola Rai and the father in law of Udai Naran Rai were guarantors of the said loan. Tunnu Rai a descendent in the branch of Ram Naresh Rai had also taken taqabi loan in village Gadua Maqsoodpur and Bhola Rai and the father in law of Udai Naran Rai were guarantors of the said loan. There is evidence which was believed by the authorities below that Tunnu a Rai was living in Gauda Maqsoodpur and had also built a house there by purchasing bricks from a Bhatta in village Duhiya. Moneys were also sent by Tunnu Rai to Udai Narain Rai. On the basis of thesc facts, the Courts below have recorded a finding that the property in dispute was treated as Joint Family property The case of blending set up by the respondents has been believed. These are findings of fact. 3. Sri Sankatha Rai Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the surrender deed of 1912 was never executed by Vibhuti Rai, that Vibhuti Rai was then a minor, that the surrender deed was never acted upon and that the law of blending is not applicable to a fixed rate tenancy. Apart from the last submission all the other contentions were raised by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It was found by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the deed of 1912 was indeed executed by Vibhuti Rai. In coming to that conclusion the Deputy Director of Consolidation placed reliance upon the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar that the deed was presented by Vibhuti Rai himself. What was filed before the Consolidation authorities was a certified copy of the said deed. Although it was submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the said certified copy does not contain any recital indicating that the signatures of Vibhuti Rai were present on the deed, the non existence of such a recital in a certified copy is not material especially in view of the fact that the deed is an old one of the year 1912. It is a registered deed and was presented for registration by Vibhuti Rai himself, a fact borne out from the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar who also certified that the signatures of Vibhuti Rai were taken in his presence and he admitted its execution. The submission that Vibhuti Rai was a minor has been e repelled by the Courts below. It is a registered deed and was presented for registration by Vibhuti Rai himself, a fact borne out from the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar who also certified that the signatures of Vibhuti Rai were taken in his presence and he admitted its execution. The submission that Vibhuti Rai was a minor has been e repelled by the Courts below. The finding is that Vibhuti Rai was about 23 years old when the deed was executed and he was not a minor The findings recorded by the authorities below upon these facts are findings of fact and are not shown to be vitiated by any error of law. 4. As regards the question whether the deed was acted upon, it is submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the name of Vhibuti Rai continued to be recorded in the revenue records till the year 1957 as his bhumidhari. Reliance has been placed upon a mortgage deed in which Vibhuti Rai the mortgagor described himself as the sole owner of the disputed land. The mortgage deed has been considered by the Courts below. The preponderance of evidence which exists indicates that the property in dispute was treated as Hindu Undivided Family property. The mere fact that Vibhuti Rai represented himself as the sole owner of the plots in dispute to an outsider, namely the mortgagee is not sufficient reason to give a go-bye to material admissions by Vibhuti Rai in the deed of 1912 that in the properties in dispute the branch of Deepan Rai and Ram NaJesh had also a share. That apart in the compromise in the mutation case in the year 1957 it was agreed upon that the properties are joint properties. It is well settled that an admission made by a party, unless explained is conclusive and binding against the person who makes it. In this case admissions were made not only by Vibhuti Rai in the deed of 1912 but also on his death by his son Bhola Rai in the compromise application. No explanation is forthcoming in what circumstances these admissions were made. These admissions are therefore binding on the petitioners The mere fact that the name of Vibhuti Rai alone was recorded in the revenue records till his death is not a conclusive circumstance indicating that the plots in question belonged to Vibhuti Rai alone. No explanation is forthcoming in what circumstances these admissions were made. These admissions are therefore binding on the petitioners The mere fact that the name of Vibhuti Rai alone was recorded in the revenue records till his death is not a conclusive circumstance indicating that the plots in question belonged to Vibhuti Rai alone. It is well known that in property of the Hindu Undivided Family the name of one person of the branch is often recorded in representative capacity. Moreover the admission regarding share of other branches contained in the dastbardari deed of 1912 may have been considered by other members of the family a sufficient safeguard of their rights it being felt unnecessary to get the names of the other branches recorded in the life time of Vibhuti Rai. The finding of fact recorded by the authorities below is that the joint family continued till 1976. The fact therefore that Vibhuti Rai’s name continued to be recorded in the revenue records till the year 1957 is not determinative of the matter. 5. Sri Sankatha Rai then submitted that the findings of the Courts below that the properties in dispute had been blended with tile Hindu Undivided Family property is erroneous and vitiated in law. It is submitted that in order to apply the doctrine of blending there must be in existence at the time of the blending other Hindu Undivided Family property into which the separate property of a coparcener is to be blended. The proposition finds support from AIR 1963 SC 1601 , Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddy & Others v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama. There is evidence on record to indicate that the family was possessed of land in other villages. The existence of such joint family land is borne out from the evidence. From the khewat batwara of 1910, Annexure I to the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that Gangoo Rai the common ancestor of the parties was having lands in mauza Kalyanpur Reotipur. In the khatauni 1910 certain plots are recorded in the name of Gangoo Rai in village Narainpur @ Hariharpur. Some of these plots are also entered in the khatauni of 1356F. Udai Narain Rai in his deposition before the Consolidation Officer has admitted that the family has 50-60 bighas of land in Mauza Kalyanpur, Reotipur, Hardwarpur, Gopenanpur etc. In the khatauni 1910 certain plots are recorded in the name of Gangoo Rai in village Narainpur @ Hariharpur. Some of these plots are also entered in the khatauni of 1356F. Udai Narain Rai in his deposition before the Consolidation Officer has admitted that the family has 50-60 bighas of land in Mauza Kalyanpur, Reotipur, Hardwarpur, Gopenanpur etc. There is thus ample material in proof of the fact that the Joint Family possessed land in other villages. Tunnu Rai in his deposition has stated that when Vibhuti Rai became major he blended the lands of village Gauda Maqsoodpur into the Hindu Undivided Family property. After the compromise in the year 1957, the names of all the branches were recorded in the revenue records and they continued to be so recorded until the basic year. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that the petitioners had knowledge about those entries as the khataunies were filed by Bhola Rai in another case. All these findings which have been recorded by the Courts below are findings of fact. 6. It was submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that there is nothing in the deed of 1912 to prove blending. The deed purports to give exclusive rights in respect of a portion of the disputed land in favour of the other two branches. It is rather described as a deed of surrender and surrender. It is submitted could only be made to the landholder, the Zamindar. No doubt the deed of 1912 does not contain terms constituting blending but no document is required under law to be executed for blending separate property of a coparcener into Hindu Undivided Family property. The deed of 1912 contains an admission that Deepan Rai and Ram Naresh Rai also have a share in the property. It therefore recognizes the fact that the properties in question belong to he Joint Hindu Family and the deed is no more than an evidence of this fact. That the disputed lands became Hindu Undivided Family Property by blending has been proved by oral evidence and the finding is one of fact. 7. It was then submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the law of blending cannot be applied to fixed rate tenancy land. That the disputed lands became Hindu Undivided Family Property by blending has been proved by oral evidence and the finding is one of fact. 7. It was then submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the law of blending cannot be applied to fixed rate tenancy land. He relies upon Section 20 of the North­West Provinces Tenancy Act of 1901 whereunder the rights of the permanent tenureholder and of a fixed rate tenant are heritable as well as transferable. It was submitted that the transfer which is contemplated under Section 20 is transfer in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and blending is not a transfer contemplated therein. In my opinion the submission does not have any force. Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act exempts agricultural leases from the operation of Chapter V of the Act (which relates to leases of immovable property) unless Government notifies otherwise. That fixed rate tenancy is property to which concepts of Hindu Law apply has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in II.R 6 Alld 234, Mahabir Prasad and another v. Basdeo Singh. In that case the concept of Hindu law that interest by birth is created in ancestral property was applied to fixed rate tenancy. Under the North­West Provinces Tenancy Act permanent tenure-holders and fixed rate tenants have been given heritable as well as transferable rights. To other tenants heritable rights alone have been given but even in the case of such other tenants co­tenancy rights could be created by acquiescence or estoppel or cooption with the consent of the landholder. The creation of co-tenancy rights by estoppel, acquiescence or cooption is not one of the modes of transfer contemplated in the Transfer of Property Act. Nevertheless decided cases held that oven in case of tenancies which were not transferable co-tenancy rights could be created by acquiescence and estoppel. A fixed rate tenancy was transferable and therefore it can be said with greater force that a fixed rate tenant could also take in a cotenant. That a Hindu Undivided Family could possess tenancy lands also is a proposition which does not admit of doubt. There is no provision either under the North-West Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 or under the Agra Tenancy Act prohibiting application of the doctrine of blending in the Hindu personal law to agriculture tenancies. That a Hindu Undivided Family could possess tenancy lands also is a proposition which does not admit of doubt. There is no provision either under the North-West Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 or under the Agra Tenancy Act prohibiting application of the doctrine of blending in the Hindu personal law to agriculture tenancies. It has been held in Ram Lakhan v. Suraj Prasad, 1939 RD 420, that even if there be no evidence that the holding was acquired out of Joint family property, the holding is joint family if it is treated by members of the family as Hindu Undivided Family land. Blending is one of the forms by which separate property of a coparcener comes to be treated as joint family property. The recitals contained in the deed of 1912 as well as in the compromise of 1957 go to show that the lands were treated as Joint Family land. The compromise was also acted upon and names of all the branches were recorded. For all these reasons the view taken by the Courts below that the lands in question were being treated as Hindu Undivided Family land and that they were joint family property appears to be correct. 8. Sri Sankatha Rai submitted that the compromise application was inadmissible for want of.registration. He placed reliance upon 1961 ALJ 440, Ram Gati Chaubey v. Ram Adlhar Chaubey. In that case it was held that a compromise declaring the parties to be absolute owners of their shares worth more than Rs. 100 being unregistered was ineffective and inadmissible in evidence. The case is distinguishable as a declaration of absolute ownership of the parties was made in the compromise application in that case. Rights were thus sought to be declared by the compromise which was therefore compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act. In the present case the compromise was a mere statement of the existing state of affairs that the property was joint and an order for mutating the names of all the branches was passed on the basis of the application. Such an admission of the existing state of affairs is not a declaration. It was also submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the compromise was not signed by parties and they never entered into it. The issue raises a question of fact. Such an admission of the existing state of affairs is not a declaration. It was also submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the compromise was not signed by parties and they never entered into it. The issue raises a question of fact. The Court below have negatived this contention and it was found that such a mutation case was indeed instituted and ended in a compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also found that the compromise was acted upon and the names of all the parties on the strength of that order were recorded in the revenue records and continued to be so recorded over a long period of time without any objection by the petitioner Bhola Rai who had knowledge about the said entries. Sri Sankatha Rai also relied upon 1973 RD 328, S.N. Dubey v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, in which it was held that a compromise in proceedings under Section 229-C of U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act is not binding as the suit was not under Section 229-8 of the Act and the Gaon Sabha and State were not impleaded as parties. The decision is distinguishable. In that case declaration of adhivasi rights was sought in a suit filed after the adhivasi tenure had by amendment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act become sirdari. It was held that there can be no estoppel against the statute and the decree was without jurisdiction. In the present case the compromise application admitted the possession of all the three branches and of the fact that Vibhuti Rai’s name was recorded in representative capacity. The mutation case was filed on the death of Vibhuti Rai. The order for recording the names of descendants of all the branches passed by the mutation Court in such circumstances was a valid one and not without jurisdiction. The Consolidation authorities have relied upon the compromise signed by Bhola Rai and others. The compromise is an admission of pre-existing rights and as to the representative character of the entry in the name of Vibhuti Rai and of the possession of all the branches and such an admission made even in mutation proceedings is binding as an admission and could be relied upon by the Courts below. For all these reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ———