JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri K.S. Chauhan for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh for respondents. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 11.12.2002, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.7.2003 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.1.2015 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 81 [consisting plots 325 (area 1.24 acre), 333 (area 0.21 acre) and 335 (area 1.00 acre)] of village Tarapur, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi, which was recorded in the name of Ram Nath son of Mahadeo, father of the petitioner. Sharda (respondent-4) filed an objection (registered as case No. 764 of 2002-03) for recording his name also, claiming his 1/2 share in the khata in dispute. It has been stated by the respondents that the land in dispute was ancestral property of Mahadeo. Mahadeo had two sons Ram Nath and Hulas. Sharda was son of Hulas as such he had 1/2 share in it. 3. Ram Nath (father of the petitioner) filed his written statement on 27.2.1997 and contested the case. He denied Hulas being son of Mahadeo. According to the petitioner, Hulas was son of Jodhan of village Tulapur, pargana Kiriyat, district Mirzapur. After death of Jodhan, his mother remarried to Mahadeo. Hulas, being of tender age at that time, came with his mother on remarriage (tarail). As such he was not entitled to any share in the property of Mahadeo. After death of Mahadeo, in the year 1987, Hulas illegally got his name also mutated over the land in dispute, by order dated 3.8.1988. On coming to know about order dated 3.8.1988, he filed a recall application. In the recall application, a compromise was filed on 20.6.1989 by the parties, in which Hulas had admitted that he was not son of Mahadeo and his name be deleted. Tahsildar, thereafter, verified the compromise on 9.8.1989 and by order dated 10.8.1989 deleted the name of Hulas from the land in dispute. The compromise and order passed on it operate as estoppel and binding upon Hulas. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. Apart from documentary evidence, the petitioner examined Ram Nath and Lallan as witnesses. Respondents examined Sharda and Jhillu Ram as witnesses. The compromise and order passed on it operate as estoppel and binding upon Hulas. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. Apart from documentary evidence, the petitioner examined Ram Nath and Lallan as witnesses. Respondents examined Sharda and Jhillu Ram as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 11.12.2002 held that in village Ramna, khata 443 was recorded in the names of Hulas and Ram Nath sons of Mahadeo. In village Sir Goberdhanpur plots 690, 806 and 821 were recorded jointly in the names of Sharda son of Hulas and Ram Nath son of Mahadeo. In Pariwar Register of the year 1970 Hulas was mentioned as son of Mahadeo in the same house No. 276 of Mahadeo, in which Ram Nath was also mentioned. Ram Nath could not adduce any evidence to prove that Hulas was born to Jodhan of village Tulapur, district Mirzapur. So far as plaint of Suit No. 430 of 1989, under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is concerned, it was filed on 17.3.1989 and withdrawn on 15.7.1989. The compromise dated 20.6.1989 filed in Case No. 692 of 1988. Both these proceeding were taken at the same time and appears to be suspicious. Name of Hulas was already recorded over the land of village Ramna on the basis of sale-deed. There was no occasion for Hulas for filing suit under section 229-B for changing his father's name. Similarly, Mahadeo died in 1987 and thereafter names of Hulas and Ram Nath sons of Mahadeo were mutated by order dared 3.8.1988. There was no need for Hulas to file any compromise. The compromise and order dated 10.8.1989 were challenged in Appeal No. 63/32 of 1997, which was dismissed as time barred. Sharda filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 182 of 1999), which was abated under section 5 of the Act by Additional Commissioner by order dated 17.5.2000. On these findings, objection of the respondent was allowed and his name was recorded over the land in dispute holding his 1/2 share. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1480/207) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 9.7.2003, affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision Nos. 224/250/296/398/470) from the aforesaid order. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1480/207) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 9.7.2003, affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision Nos. 224/250/296/398/470) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 30.1.2015, held that in Pariwar Register of the year 1970 Hulas was mentioned as son of Mahadeo in the same house No. 276 of Mahadeo, in which Ram Nath was also mentioned. Ram Nath could not adduce any evidence to prove that Hulas was born to Jodhan of village Tulapur, district Mirzapur. Sale-deed dated 7.8.1956 filed in revision shows that Ram Nath and Hulas obtained sale deed jointly in the names of their wives, from which also their joint living was proved. So far as plaint of Suit No. 430 of 1989, under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is concerned, it was filed on 17.3.1989 and was withdrawn on 15.7.1989. The compromise dated 20.6.1989 was filed in Case No. 692 of 1988. Both these proceeding were taken at the same time and appear to be suspicious. Name of Hulas was already recorded over the land of village Ramna on the basis of sale-deed. There was no occasion for Hulas for filing suit under section 229-B for changing his father's name. Similarly, Mahadeo died in 1987 and thereafter names of Hulas and Ram Nath sons of Mahadeo were mutated by order dared 3.8.1988. There was no need for Hulas to file any compromise. The compromise and order dated 10.8.1989 were challenged in Appeal No. 63/32 of 1997, which was dismissed as time barred. Then Sharda filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 182 of 1999), which was abated under section 5 of the Act by Additional Commissioner dated 17.5.2000. An admission is binding upon the parties when admission was proved to be correct beyond doubt In this case admission was challenged. In the fact and circumstances it is proved that it was fraud on Court and not voluntary admission of Hulas. Ram and Hulas jointly obtained two sale deeds i.e. sale-deed dated 23.3.1967 and 24.4.1967 in which name of their father was mentioned as Mahadeo. On these findings, he dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. In the fact and circumstances it is proved that it was fraud on Court and not voluntary admission of Hulas. Ram and Hulas jointly obtained two sale deeds i.e. sale-deed dated 23.3.1967 and 24.4.1967 in which name of their father was mentioned as Mahadeo. On these findings, he dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Hulas himself filed Suit No. 430 of 1989, under section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for changing his parentage from Mahadeo to Jodhan. The father of the petitioner filed an application for recall of the order dated 3.8.1988 in Case No. 692 of 1988, by which name of Hulas was also mutated as an heir of Mahadeo. In which Hulas and Ram Nath filed compromise dated 20.6.1989, which was verified on 9.8.1989 and on its basis order was passed on 10.8.1988. The plaint of Suit No. 430 of 1989 and compromise filed in Case No. 692 of 1988 contained admission of Hulas that he was son of Jodhan and not Mahadeo. This Court in Jokhan v. Ram Deo 1966 RD 348 , and Rant Narain Singh v. DDC and others 1985 RD 249, held that compromise decree operates as estoppel. An admission is best evidence, which can be relied upon against the parties making such admission as held by this Court in Girdhari Lal v. DDC and others 1985 RD 135, and Supreme Court in Vathsala Manickavasagam v. N. Ganesan 2014 (122) RD 180 (SC). The consolidation authorities have illegally ignored the admissions of Hulas. Sharda claimed co-tenancy right in the land in dispute. Burden of proof was upon him to prove the pedigree as held by this Court in Bal Kishun v. DDC and others 2006 (2) AWC 1199 , and Supreme Court in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami 2011 (113) RD 744 (SC). The respondent could not prove that Hulas was son of Mahadeo. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as burden of proof is concerned, in this case tooth the parties have adduced their evidence as such burden of proof has become irrelevant and the case was decided after considering entire evidence on record. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties and examined the record. So far as burden of proof is concerned, in this case tooth the parties have adduced their evidence as such burden of proof has become irrelevant and the case was decided after considering entire evidence on record. The respondents filed copy of Kutunb Register of the year 1970 in which name of Hulas was recorded as son of Mahadeo in the same house of Mahadeo in which name of Ram Nath son of Mahadeo was also recorded. The respondent also filed copies of two sale-deeds dated 23.3.1967 and 24.4.1967 jointly obtained by Ram Nath and Hulas in which names of their father was mentioned as Mahadeo. Oral evidence has also been adduce to prove parentage of Hulas. The consolidation authorities relied upon these evidence and held that Hulas was son of Mahadeo. Finding of fact recorded by consolidation authorities do not suffer from any illegality. 8. On the other hand, case of the petitioner was Hulas was son of Jodhan of village Tulapur, pargana Kiriyat, district Mirzapur. After death of Jodhan, his mother remarried to Mahadeo. Hulas, being of tender age at that time, came with his mother on remarriage (tarail) to the house of Mahadeo. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that Hulas was son of Jodhan. He has failed to prove his case. 9. Only arguments remained about the alleged admissions of Hulas in plaint of Suit No. 430 of 1989 and compromise filed in restoration application in Case No. 692 of 1988. The respondent denied filing of the Suit No. 430 of 1988 and compromise in Case No. 692 of 1988. The petitioner could not adduce any evidence to prove that plaint of Suit No. 430 of 1989 and compromise in Case No. 692 of 1988 were signed by Hulas. Consolidation authorities found that plaint of Suit No. 692 of 1988 was filed on 17.3.1989 and was withdrawn on 15.7.1989. The compromise was filed on 20.6.1989. Filing of these document by Hulas was not proved. There was no occasion for Hulas to file the suit as his name was already mutated over the land purchased by him through sale deed and the land inherited by him from Mahadeo. This was fraud on Court by the petitioner himself. The compromise was filed on 20.6.1989. Filing of these document by Hulas was not proved. There was no occasion for Hulas to file the suit as his name was already mutated over the land purchased by him through sale deed and the land inherited by him from Mahadeo. This was fraud on Court by the petitioner himself. Thus it was found that alleged plaint and compromise was not filed by Hulas. 10. Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin 2012 (117) RD 784 (SC) held that admissions are governed under sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and such admissions can be tendered and accepted as substantive evidence. "Admissions" made by a party though not conclusive, is a decisive factor in a case unless the other party successfully withdraws the same or proves it to be erroneous. In this case, it was not proved that the alleged plaint and compromise were filed by Hulas. An admission is not a conclusive proof. The respondents on the basis of documentary as oral evidence proved that Hulas was son of Mahadeo. The petitioner has absolutely no explanation of two sale-deeds dated 23.3.1967 and 24.4.1967 jointly obtained by Ram Nath and Hulas in which names of their father was mentioned as Mahadeo. After 1967, the petitioner for the first time in 1997 began to say that Hulas was not son of Mahadeo. Joint living in same house and joint acquisition of sale-deeds in 1956 in the names of their wife and in 1967 in their names was proved. Consolidation Officer found that in village Ramna, khata 443 was recorded in the names of Hulas and Ram Nath sons of Mahadeo. In village Sir Goberdhanpur plots 690, 806 and 821 were recorded jointly in the names of Sharda son of Hulas and Ram Nath son of Mahadeo. From these documents also it was proved that Hulas was son of Mahadeo. Thus the findings of facts recorded by the consolidation authorities do not suffer from any illegality. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. ……………….