JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Yadav, for the contesting respondent-3. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08.12.1980 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.09.2015, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to land of khata 46 [consisting plots 1 (area 2-15-17 bigha), 74 (area 0-5-19 bigha), 75 (area 0-6-13 bigha), 102 (area 1-14-11 bigha), 103 (area 0-15-1 bigha), 164/1 (area 1-9-0 bigha), 164/2 (area 0-2-5 bigha), 238 (area 1-9-4 bigha), 280 (area 1-11-0 bigha) and 295 (area 0-19-0 bigha) (total 10 plots area 11-18-0 bigha] of village Kheria, pargana Fatehpur, district Barabanki, which was recorded in basic consolidation year, in the names of Bajrang (respondent-3), Sanwal Prasad son of Bakhtawar, Brahma and Bisheshwar sons of Laxman, Kidhi son of Sanwal and Badri son of Bisheshwar (now represented by the petitioners). Bajrang alias Siya Ram filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2077 and 2078) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of Sanwal Prasad and others (the petitioners) from the land in dispute. Respondent-3 stated that land in dispute was sirdari holding of Kallu son of Gauri Shankar. Kallu adopted him and executed registered adoption deed dated 29.06.1949. After death of Kallu, respondent-3 inherited the land in dispute. However, respondent-3 was minor at the time of death of Kallu. The petitioners got the land in dispute attached in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. Due to which a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed by respondent-3 through guardian, in which by committing fraud, the petitioners obtained a compromise decree dated 29.04.1959/27.05.1959. Respondent-3 filed a suit for cancellation of compromise decree dated 29.04.1959/27.05.1959, which was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act. The petitioners contested the case and stated that land in dispute was ancestral property from the time of Shobha, common ancestor. After death of Shobha, it was inherited by his sons Raghunath, Laxman, Gauri Shankar and Bakhtawar. Kallu was son of Gauri Shankar as such respondent-3 was co-sharer of ¼ share in the land in dispute. The petitioners contested the case and stated that land in dispute was ancestral property from the time of Shobha, common ancestor. After death of Shobha, it was inherited by his sons Raghunath, Laxman, Gauri Shankar and Bakhtawar. Kallu was son of Gauri Shankar as such respondent-3 was co-sharer of ¼ share in the land in dispute. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 16.10.1970, held that in the suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, a compromise was filed between the parties on 29.4.1959. Respondent-3 was minor as such compromise was signed by Malkhan, his guardian, who had filed the suit and suit was decided in terms of compromise by order dated 27.05.1959. Respondent-3 attained age of majority on 09.02.1963. Suit for cancellation of compromise decree ought to have been filed up to 09.02.1966 but it was filed on 15.07.1966 as such the suit was barred by limitation. Under compromise decree dated 27.05.1959, respondent-3 was given 17/32 share. On these findings, he dismissed objection of respondent-3, holding his 17/32 share. 4. Respondent-3 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1282/44) from the aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15.10.1971 dismissed the appeal. Respondent-3 filed a revision against aforesaid order, which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 15.03.1973 and the matter was remanded to Settlement Officer Consolidation to decide the appeal afresh. Settlement Officer Consolidation again dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.08.1973. Respondent-3 filed a revision against this order which was again allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 06.01.1977 and the matter was again remanded to appellate court. After remand, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 08.12.1980 allowed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision against this order which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 13.03.1981. 5. Respondent-3 filed a writ petition (registered as Consolidation No. 2018 of 1981). This Court after hearing the parties by order dated 29.07.2013 held that as on the application filed by the petitioners, suit for cancellation of compromise decree was abated by Civil Court by order dated 13.10.1969 as such the petitioners cannot raise the plea that consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of compromise decree dated 27.05.1959, otherwise also the decree is in respect of agricultural land as such its validity can be examined by consolidation authorities. On these findings writ petition was allowed an the matter was remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the dispute afresh. 6. After remand, Deputy Director of Consolidation, by dated 15.09.2015 held that High Court found that suit for cancellation of compromise decree was within time. The guardian of respondent-3 did not obtain permission for compromise as such compromise decree was void. The petitioners could not adduce any evidence to prove that the land in dispute was ancestral property. Land revenue receipts etc. were of subsequent to compromise decree. Kallu was hereditary tenant of the land in dispute and after date of vesting he had become sirdar of it. So far as land of Khatas 2 and 3 are concerned, there is no merit in the revision filed by respondent-3. On these findings both revisions were dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. Respondent-3 did not file any writ petition, in respect of land of khatas-2 and 3. 7. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that land in dispute was recorded in the name of Shobha (common ancestor of the parties) in 1300 F khatauni. After death of Shobha, it was inherited by his sons Raghunath, Laxman, Gauri Shankar and Bakhtawar. However name of Gauri Shankar, alone was recorded in representative capacity. After death of Gauri Shankar, name of Kallu was recorded. Respondent-3 is claiming to be an adopted son of Kallu as such he is co-sharer of ¼ share in the land in dispute. Pedigree of the parties as mentioned in paragraph-7 of the writ petition, has been proved. After death of Shobha, name of Gauri Shankar and after his death name of Kallu came to be recorded in representative capacity although all the co-sharers remained in joint possession of the land in dispute. Respondent-3, through his guardian Malkhan (uncle i.e. brother of his natural father) mala fide filed a suit for declaration that he was sole sirdar of the land in dispute and for ejectment of the petitioners from it, under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Later on, in order to avoid dispute, a compromise was entered in to between the parties and written compromise signed by the parties was filed in the Court on 29.04.1959, which was duly verified. The suit was decreed in terms of compromise by order dated 27.05.1959. Later on, in order to avoid dispute, a compromise was entered in to between the parties and written compromise signed by the parties was filed in the Court on 29.04.1959, which was duly verified. The suit was decreed in terms of compromise by order dated 27.05.1959. Under Appendix III, vide Entry 30, of Rules, 1952, initially limitation of two years was provided for filing suit for ejectment. With effect from 09.04.1954, it was amended as three years, from 27.03.1959, it was amended as six years and from 14.10.1971, it was amended as twelve years. The suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, was filed on 26.02.1959 at that time limitation was three years. According to own certificate, respondent-3 has become major on 09.02.1963. Siya Ram is son of Guru Charan and after his death, he had inherited his property. He by changing his name as Bajrang, is now illegally claiming property of Kallu, maternal uncle of Guru Charan. Respondents-1 and 2 has not even referred the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner, from which it was fully proved that land in dispute was ancestral property coming from the time of Shobha. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon judgments of this Court in Mam Chand v. DDC and others, 1971 UPRC 271 and Thakurdin v. DDC and others, 1983 ALJ 1382, in which it was held that compromise decree is binding upon the parties and has effect of estoppel. Bachcha v. DDC and others, 1973 URC 530, in which it has been held that mere fact that the plots have been inter-mixed or there is slight change in the area of ancestral land will not change the nature of ancestral land. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Consolidation Officer found that respondents-3 filed original registered adoption deed dated 28.06.1949, which was more than twenty years old as such it was admissible in evidence. Ceremonies of adoption of Bajrang by Kallu was proved by Triveni Pandit, in his oral statement. Findings in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 9. Now it has to be examined as to whether land in dispute was coming from the time of Shobha, common ancestor. Ceremonies of adoption of Bajrang by Kallu was proved by Triveni Pandit, in his oral statement. Findings in this respect do not suffer from any illegality. 9. Now it has to be examined as to whether land in dispute was coming from the time of Shobha, common ancestor. Basic consolidation year khata 46 consisted plots 1 (area 2-15-17 bigha), 74 (area 0-5-19 bigha), 75 (area 0-6-13 bigha), 102 (area 1-14-11 bigha), 103 (area 0-15-1 bigha), 164/1 (area 1-9-0 bigha), 164/2 (area 0-2-5 bigha), 238 (area 1-9-4 bigha), 280 (area 1-11-0 bigha) and 295 (area 0-19-0 bigha) (total 10 plots area 11-18-0 bigha. The petitioners have filed copy of khatauni 1300 F, in which plots 101 (area 0-15-0 bigha), 266 (area 0-15-15 bigha), 19 (area 1-5-5 bigha), 73 (area 0-10-10 bigha), 100 (area 2-10-15 bigha), 135 (area 0-5-5 bigha), 137 (area 1-10-0 bigha), 154 (area 0-14-0 bigha), 214 (area 2-5-15 bigha), 253 (area 0-15-0 bigha), 277 (area 0-5-15 bigha) and 295 (area 1-10-10 bigha) were recorded in the name of Shobha. In 1332 F, plots 1 (area 8-6-0 bigha), 16 (area 1-3-8 bigha), 17 (area 1-0-8 bigha), 18 (area 0-14-4 bigha), 103 (area 2-5-0 bigha) and 295/2 (area 2-17-0 bigha), were recorded in the name of Gauri son of Shobha. Plots 74 (area 0-17-17 bigha), 75 (area 0-19-19 bigha), 102 (area 5-3- 13 bigha), 164 (area 4-7-0 bigha), 238 (area 3-12-0 bigha), 280 (area 4-13-0 bigha) were separately recorded in the name of Kallu son of Gauri Shankar with period of cultivation from 1330 F. The petitioners have filed comparative table of settlement year 1332 F, from which it is proved that plots 19, 135, 137, 266, 277 and 295, which were recorded in the name of Shobha in 1300 F were not recorded either in the name of Gauri or Kallu in 1332 F. While plot 100 and 214 of 1300 F were recorded with variation of its area. Thus it is not proved that land which were recorded in the name of Shobha came to be recorded in the name of Gauri Shankar in representative capacity in its unbroken identity. This Court in Triloki Nath v. DDC and others, 1988 RD 311, held in order to claim co-tenancy, unbroken identity from the time of common ancestor has to be proved. Some new plots were also acquired by Gauri Shankar and Kallu. 10. This Court in Triloki Nath v. DDC and others, 1988 RD 311, held in order to claim co-tenancy, unbroken identity from the time of common ancestor has to be proved. Some new plots were also acquired by Gauri Shankar and Kallu. 10. Further, during life time of Gauri Shankar, name of Kallu was recorded over plots 74 (area 0-17-17 bigha), 75 (area 0-19-19 bigha), 102 (area 5-3-13 bigha), 164 (area 4-7-0 bigha), 238 (area 3-12-0 bigha), 280 (area 4-13-0 bigha) independently, in 1332 F. Which falsify the theory of representative capacity. Rather it was proved that ancestral holdings of the time of Shobha were partitioned between his sons. There is no evidence on record to prove that in 1332 F family of the parties were joint. Findings that the petitioners failed to prove that the land in dispute was ancestral property does not suffer from any illegality. A member of joint family is not debarred from acquiring property separately as held by this Court in Sheo Nath v. DDC and others, 1983 RD 107 and Bodh Raj v. JDC and others, 1995 (13) LDC 1121. 11. Respondent-3 took the plea that during his minority, his guardian colluded with the petitioners and entered in to compromise dated 29.04.1959, without leave of the Court. The compromise is void. According to the petitioners, compromise decree is voidable and so long as it is not canceled by competent civil court it is binding upon the parties. In this respect, relevant provisions of Order 32, Rule 7 C.P.C. are quoted - Order 32, Rule 7 . Agreement or compromise by next friend or guardian for the suit:- (1) No next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian. Agreement or compromise by next friend or guardian for the suit:- (1) No next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian. (1-A) An application for leave under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend or the guardian for the suit, as the case may be, and also, if the minor is represented by a pleader, by the certificate of the pleader, to the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor: Provided that the opinion so expressed, whether in the affidavit or in the certificate shall not preclude the Court from examining whether the agreement or compromise proposed is for the benefit of the minor. (2) Any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the Court so recorded shall be voidable against all parties other than the minor." 12. Thus bare reading of Order 32, Rule 7 (2) C.P.C. shows that compromise is voidable against other parties and it is void against minor. It is not dispute that compromise dated 29.04.1959 was passed without leave of the Court as such the compromise as well as decree passed on its basis was void. Otherwise also this Court, in previous writ petition between the parties has held its validity can be examined by consolidation authorities. Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Gurdial Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 552 , and Ram Chandra Sakharam Mahajan v. Damodar Trimbak, AIR 2007 SC 2577 , held that although by an admission, title in immovable property cannot be created but an opinion can be formed in respect of the nature of the land, subject-matter of admission. Section 33 (Proviso) of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 imposed a restriction on co-option of cotenant except with written consent of Zamindar as held by this Court in Chhidda v. JDC and others, 1968 RD 205. Same restriction has been applied for cooption in sirdari holding by Division Bench of this Court in Budhlal v. DDC and others, 1982 RD 304 (DB). 13. Now issue relating to limitation has to be examined. Same restriction has been applied for cooption in sirdari holding by Division Bench of this Court in Budhlal v. DDC and others, 1982 RD 304 (DB). 13. Now issue relating to limitation has to be examined. The courts below found that possession of the petitioners prior to passing of compromise decree dated 27.05.1959 was not proved. Respondent-3 attained age of majority on 09.02.1963. Suit for cancellation of compromise decree was filed on 15.07.1966 and objection in consolidation was filed on 13.09.1967. As held that compromise decree was void as such on the date of attaining majority by respondent-3, limitation of six year for recovery of possession will apply as such suit could be filed up to 30.06.1969 and suit and objection was within time. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.