Vikram Nath,J.:- This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7th January, 1974, 23rd April, 1971 and 22nd January, 1971 passed by all the three consolidation courts i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 3 respectively. 2. Dispute relates to khata nos. 63, 63A and 63 B of village Banwadih, Pargana, Angoli, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). In the basic year khata no.63 was recorded in the name of Ram Iqbal and others (some of the respondents), khata no.63A was recorded in the name of Sarjoo and Dev Saran, respondent nos.18 and 19 and khata 63 B was recorded in the name of Indrabali and purchasers of the share of Ram Narain, Sheo Mahal and Achhaiber. The land in dispute is admittedly ancestral. For the purpose of this case, the dispute is between the heirs of Fakir and as to who will succeed to his estate. The pedigree as given in the petition is as follows :- Faqir Kalika Pragas Mst. Bunaoo (widow) (daughters) Mrs. Subicha (widow). Parbati Diljhari Nanjhari Lachi Lakhapatti Dilraji Abhiraji Gujrati Kamta Sanjhari (daugher) Ram Naresh Ram Biwas Ram Charitra Ram Iqbal Rati Pal Chatra Pal Raghu Nath Indersen (son) Ganga Prasad Januna Gomti Ram Bhilakh Ram Deo Harpal Harsnarain Bijai Bahadur 3. Fakir had two sons Kalika and Pragas. Mst. Bunao was wife of Kalika. They had four daughters. On the other side Smt. Subicha was the wife of Pragas and they also had four daughters. Petitioner no.1 Ganga Prasad is the grand son of Smt. Gujrati one of the four daughters born out of the wedlock of Kalika and Smt. Bunaoo. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are the grand son of Smt. Parbati one of the four daughters of Pragas and Smt. Subicha. Petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the purchaser from petitioner nos.1 to 3. Respondent 4/Indersen is the grand son of Smt. Lachi one of the four daughters of Pragas and Smt. Subicha. Objections were filed before the Consolidation Officer under section 9 as also under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One set of application has been filed by petitioner nos. 4 and 5 for recording their names with regard to the land covered by sale deed executed by petitioner nos.1 to 3. One set of application has been filed by petitioner nos. 4 and 5 for recording their names with regard to the land covered by sale deed executed by petitioner nos.1 to 3. Petitioner nos.1 to 3 filed a separate set of objections claiming that they were the sole bhumidhar of 1/3 share of the khatas in dispute and Indersen/respondent no.4 had no title or interest therein and that he had been wrongly transferring the land of the khata in dispute. Indersen/respondent no.4 contested the objections and claimed that he was sole bhumidhar to the extent of 1/3 share in the khata in dispute and that the petitioners had no right, title or interest. The Consolidation Officer framed seven issues and vide judgement dated 22nd January, 1971 directed that khata no.63 will be recorded in the names of 13 persons as per the share mentioned against their names which included the petitioners and respondents both, with regard to khata nos. 63-A and 63-B he directed that they would be partitioned in equal shares between the parties. 4. Five appeals were filed against the judgement of the Consolidation Officer. All the appeals were consolidated and decided by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide judgement dated 23rd April, 1971 whereby he dismissed all the five appeals holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the Consolidation Officer. Five revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation consolidated all the five revisions and vide judgement dated 7.1.1974 dismissed the 3 revisions filed by Jhumak Singh and others, Ganga Prasad Singh and Ram Iqbal and others. The revision filed by Sheo Bahadur Singh was partly allowed and he was declared owner of 0.09 acres in the disputed khatas and lastly the revision filed by Banke Behari was allowed and he was declared Asami of 1/3 share of the disputed khata. It is against these orders of the Consolidation Courts that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. K. Rai and Sri P. N. Tripathi, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri B. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Singh, Advocate representing respondent no.4. 6. There has been several round of litigation between the parties right from 1928. 5. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri A. K. Rai and Sri P. N. Tripathi, Advocates, on behalf of the petitioners and Sri B. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Singh, Advocate representing respondent no.4. 6. There has been several round of litigation between the parties right from 1928. Reference to the same is found in all the judgements of the Consolidation Courts in particular the judgement of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer which are in greater detail. The main question which arises in this case is as to whether Indersen (respondent no.4) was or was not the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and Smt. Subicha. If we notice the pedigree given in the earlier part of the judgement according to the claim of Indersen (respondent no.4) Smt. Lachi was one of the four daughters of Pragas and Smt. Subhicha. In turn Smt. Lachi had one daughter Smt. Sonjhari who was the mother of Indersen (respondent no.4). On the other hand the petitioners had been alleging that Indersen was not the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and Subicha. 7. Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, has urged the following three points. 1.The Deputy Director of Consolidation erred in ignoring the award of the Arbitrator appointed under Section 12 of the Act dated 6th July, 1961 as it had become final between the parties and had the effect of resjudicata between the parties. 2.The reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the alleged compromise was liable to be ignored having not been given effect to for a long period is not tenable in law. 3.Lastly that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while recording the findings had relied upon inadmissible evidence. 8. Elaborating his arguments Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel referred to the award dated 6th July, 1961 filed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition. It is an award by Sri U. S. Pandey, Arbitrator. The Arbitrator framed five issues. The last issue being whether Indersen had 1/3 share in the plots mentioned in list A and list B (referred to in issue no.2). From the recital in the award it is noticed that the same is mainly based upon a compromise which had been arrived at between the parties in the year 1946. The Arbitrator framed five issues. The last issue being whether Indersen had 1/3 share in the plots mentioned in list A and list B (referred to in issue no.2). From the recital in the award it is noticed that the same is mainly based upon a compromise which had been arrived at between the parties in the year 1946. The Arbitrator has given a finding based on the said compromise. However, with regard to issue no.5 the Arbitrator has held that as Indersen was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas he was not entitled to inherit any share in the estate of Pragas. Heavy reliance has been placed on the award of the Arbitrator by Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate. Based upon the same and in particular the finding recorded on issue no.5, the claim of Indersen (respondent no.4) has been objected to. According to him it will have an effect of resjudicata and in support of the said arguments, Sri Singh has relied upon the following judgements :- 1.K.V. George Vs. The Secretary to Govt. Water and Power Dept., Trivandrum and another reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 53. 2.Satish Kumar and others Vs Surinder Kumar and others reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 833. 3.Srimati Raj Lakshmi Dasi and others Vs. Banamali Sen and others reported in AIR 1953 Sup. Court 33. 4.Smt. Banto Vs. Smt. Yashoda reported in R.D. 1973 464 5.Charan Singh (dead) through his legal representatives and others Vs. Babu Lal and others reported in R.D 1966 240. 6. Raghunath and others Vs. Ram Khelawan and others reported in 1968 A.L.J 982 9. With regard to the second point which in fact is an extension of first point, it has been submitted that the compromise arrived at in 1946 and having been accepted by the Arbitrator in the award stood recognised and as such would be binding on all the parties. It is further submitted that the reasoning given by the Deputy Director that as the compromise of 1946 had never been implemented and as such liable to be ignored cannot be sustained in law. 10. It is further submitted that the reasoning given by the Deputy Director that as the compromise of 1946 had never been implemented and as such liable to be ignored cannot be sustained in law. 10. Sri R. N. Singh while dealing with the third submissions has referred to certain orders in the previous litigation which according to him although relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation had in fact lost their character and strength as the earlier round of litigation had not been finalized in any of the innings and every time the same had been abated on account of intervention of the Consolidation operations. In this background he submits that the earlier orders relied upon by the Deputy Director of Consolidation were inadmissible. He has further extended his argument and has submitted that the statement of witnesses or the pleadings recorded in the previous round of litigation could not also be relied upon as the proceedings in which such statement and pleadings had been recorded had all abated. Thus, he submits that reliance on the statements and the pleadings in the earlier round of litigation would be inadmissible evidence and could not be admitted in evidence. In support of this submission he has relied upon the following two decisions :- 1.Sahdeo and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi reported in 1980 All. L. J. 1110. 2.Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava Vs. Bhawani Shanker Bhargava and another reported in 1957 Allahabad 1, AIR 1. 11. On the other hand Sri B. P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the judgements of the consolidation Courts based upon consideration of material evidence on record stand concluded by pure findings of fact not warranting any interference. In reply to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that firstly the award under Section 12 of the Act dated 06.07.1961 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition was based upon a compromise in which Indrasen (respondent no.4) was not a party. The said compromise could not have been relied upon as it would not be binding on Indrasen and therefore the award is bad in law. He has then referred to the finding on Issue no.5 in the award which according to him is without application of mind as there is no discussion. The said compromise could not have been relied upon as it would not be binding on Indrasen and therefore the award is bad in law. He has then referred to the finding on Issue no.5 in the award which according to him is without application of mind as there is no discussion. He has further submitted that the said award related to the property situate in village Marhat which is apparent from the reading of the award itself, whereas the dispute before the Consolidation Courts which gives rise to the present writ petition is with regard to village Bamadih and as such, the said award will have no application even if it is taken to have attained finality. 12. With regard to the second submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said compromise of 1946, admittedly did not involve Indrasen (respondent no.4) as such the same was not binding upon the respondent no.4. Even otherwise Smt. Lachi had inherited from her father Pragas and after her death it would come to Indrasen being daughter's son. As such the finding on issue no.5 in the award is bad in law. Further the Arbitrator has not recorded the dates of death of the four issues of Pragas, his widow and Smt. Sonjhari (mother of Indrasen) as such also the abrupt finding on issue no.5 is bad in law. 13. Coming to the third argument on behalf of the petitioner, the reply is that the pleadings and statements recorded in the earlier round of litigation which may have abated, would still be binding on the parties in collateral proceedings and any admission or denial made in the previous round of litigation cannot be said to have been washed off. They would still be admissible in evidence. The Courts below have rightly relied upon the pleadings and the evidence led in the previous litigation. In support of his submissions counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following decisions:- 1.Kalika Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad reported in 1976 AWC 460 . 2.Banwari Nathoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1975 Allahabad 199. 3.Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan Versus CBI reported in (2006)5 Supreme Court Cases 752. 4.Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1657. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad reported in 1976 AWC 460 . 2.Banwari Nathoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1975 Allahabad 199. 3.Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan Versus CBI reported in (2006)5 Supreme Court Cases 752. 4.Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh reported in AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1657. 5.Smt. Natho and another Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others reported in 1966 R.D 170. 14. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, I now proceed to deal with each of them separately. 15. The award of the Arbitrator dated 6th July, 1961 filed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition clearly mentions that it was with regard to the property situate in village Marhat. The plot mentioned in the list A and B of Issue no.2 of the award would also be of village Marhat. Issue nos.1 to 4 of the said award are not of much relevance for this case. It is the Issue no.5 which is relevant and the finding thereon can be said to have relevance to the properties situated and the dispute relating to the other villages also, as it decides the question with regard to inheritance of Indersen. Arbitrator had held that Indersen would not inherit to the estate of Pragas as he is the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas and under no tenancy law, daughter's daughter's son could be given any share. Along with the counter affidavit of Shiv Bahadur, is annexed a supplementary award dated 14th February, 1962. This award is also of Sri U. S. Pandey. In issue no.2 of the said award it has been specifically held that Indersen is the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas but as under law daughter's daughter's son would not be an heir, as such Indersen would not get any share in the estate of Pragas. In view of the above awards of the Arbitrator which have been strongly relied upon by the petitioner one thing is clear that Indersen is daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. Petitioner in this petition before the Consolidation Court had taken objection that Indersen was not daughter's daughter's son of Pragas but was stranger to the family. All the three courts had concurrently held based upon material evidence on record that Indersen was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. Petitioner in this petition before the Consolidation Court had taken objection that Indersen was not daughter's daughter's son of Pragas but was stranger to the family. All the three courts had concurrently held based upon material evidence on record that Indersen was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. Even in the awards of the Arbitrator which has been the backbone of the petitioner's argument it has been also held that Indrasen is the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. Thus I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Courts below that Indersen was the daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. 16. Now the question would be as to whether Indersen would inherit to the estate of Pragas or not. The Arbitrator had held that Indersen would not inherit to the estate of Pragas being daughter's daughter's son. This finding was based upon the compromise of 1946 in which admittedly Indersen was not a party and he had not signed the compromise. The compromise would not be binding on Indersen. The Consolidation Officer had recorded a specific finding that Smt. Lachi had survived her three sisters and her mother who all had died in the lifetime of Pargas. As a result on the death of Pargas, Smt.Lachi would inherit his estate. After death of Smt. Lachi it would be succeeded by her daughter Smt. Sonjhari and thereafter Smt. Sonjhari's son Indersen would inherit. 17. Further the award related to the property of village Marhat whereas the dispute in the present case is of the property situate in village Bamadih. As such the award of the Arbitrator cannot be applied against the respondent Indersen as resjudicata. Rejudicata can be applied only if there had earlier been a decision of a competent Court with regard to the matter directly or indirectly in issue between the same parties then the same issue being again raised subsequently in another suit would be barred under Section 11 of the CPC. 18. Next question which arises is as to whether award dated 6th July, 1961 can be said to be a decree of competent Court. None of three Courts have recorded any finding with regard to the award dated 06.07.1961 being made rule of the Court. No material has been filed along with the writ petition or with the rejoinder affidavit to show that award dated 6.7.1961 had been made rule of the Court. None of three Courts have recorded any finding with regard to the award dated 06.07.1961 being made rule of the Court. No material has been filed along with the writ petition or with the rejoinder affidavit to show that award dated 6.7.1961 had been made rule of the Court. According to Sri R. N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, the award had been made a rule of the Court and in that regard he has placed a typed copy of order dated 19.08.1963 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in Misc. Appeal No. 121 of 1961, Ram Abhilakh Singh Versus Ram Charritar Singh. 19. Even for the sake of argument if it is taken that the said award 06.07.1961 was made Rule of the Court and had been affirmed in appeal, in the opinion of the Court it would not apply as resjudicata nor can it be relied upon. No evidence was filed before the Courts below to prove that the award had been made rule of the Court. Even before this Court also the orders of the Court making the award rule of the Court or the appellate order had not been filed. Further for the following reasons the award could not operate as resjudicata debarring Indersen from any share in the property in dispute. Further the award was with regard to village Marhat whereas the dispute relates to village Bamadih. In the compromise of 1946 on which reliance had been placed and which was the sole basis of the award, Indersen was not a party and lastly the Arbitrator had given findings on Issue no.5 in the original award as modified in issue no.2 of supplementary award in favour of Indersen holding that Indersen was daughter's daughter's son of Pragas. The Arbitrators had not dealt with the sequence of the death of Pargas, his widow and his four daughters which was very relevant. The authorities relied upon by Sri. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the issue of resjudicata are all on different set of facts and they cannot be applied in the facts of the present case as recorded above. 20. The compromise of 1946 admittedly was without the participation of Indersen. A compromise is binding on the parties who participate in the compromise. 20. The compromise of 1946 admittedly was without the participation of Indersen. A compromise is binding on the parties who participate in the compromise. Petitioner has not been able to show that Indersen had been a party to the compromise of 1946. Therefore, the said compromise would not be binding for both the reasons, firstly as given by the Court below that it had not been given effect to for almost two decades and secondly as Indersen was not a party to the said proceedings of compromise. 21. It is well settled that the pleadings and the evidence led in earlier proceedings which may have either abated or may have not attained finality for whatsoever reasons would be binding on the parties with regard to their admission and denial in subsequent collateral proceedings. Thus, whether petitioner or their predecessor in interest in earlier round of litigation had admitted in their pleadings and in their statements that Indersen was the son of Smt. Sonjhari daughter of Smt. Lachi, the same would be relevant in the present proceedings. It is only the finding of the Courts in the earlier round of litigation whether it be summary proceedings or said proceedings having abated which loose their effect and would not be admissible in evidence but the pleading and the evidence of the previous litigation whether summary or otherwise would always be binding. Further learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show which piece of pleading or evidence relied upon by Courts below were not admissible and how. It has also not been demonstrated as to which order passed in previous proceedings which had been relied upon had lost its efficacy on account of abatement or otherwise. In this view of the matter last submission of Sri Singh also fails. 22. In view of the above discussion and further in view of the fact that all the Courts have concurrently held based upon consideration of material on record that Indersen was the son of Smt. Sonjhari daughter of Smt. Lachi would be a pure finding of fact and it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. The finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer with regard to the sequence of death of the daughters and widow of Pragas having not been assailed nor any evidence led to that effect, the same would be binding on the parties including the petitioners. 23. The finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer with regard to the sequence of death of the daughters and widow of Pragas having not been assailed nor any evidence led to that effect, the same would be binding on the parties including the petitioners. 23. In this view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 24. There shall however be no order as to costs.