JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, Advocate, for petitioner. None appeared on behalf of respondents, despite the case having been called in revise. 2. The dispute relates to the Gatas recorded in Khata No. 90, 161 and 162 as detailed below : Khata No. Gata No. Area 90 97/2 0.19 dismal 90 103/1 0.11 dismal 161 315 0.19 dismal 161 99 0.37 dismal 162 97 0.19 dismal 162 103/1 0.10 dismal 3. Petitioner, Dukkhu, son of Jhuru, claimed that the aforesaid land was ancestral tenancy inasmuch Devi Charan had three sons, Mahngu, Shiv Niwaj and Ram Niwaj and all the three were recorded as co-occupants of the disputed land, in Revenue record. Name of Hemraj was also recorded in representative capacity. Defendants-3, 4, 5 and 6 are cousins of Dukkhu. Family tree given in the order of Consolidation Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CO") is as under : Devi Charan Mahngu Shiv Niwaj Ram Niwaj Bhola Bhulai Buddhu Hemraj Umrao Mata Bhikh Chekhuri Munnu Musai Sitai Pali Sampati Bhuru Jaidhar Badri Chhakkan Achhaivar Mu.Vipti Dukkhu 4. Basic year Revenue entry contained names of Chhakkan, son of Munnu in respect of Khata No. 90, Achaivar son of Sampati in respect of Khata No. 161 and Sitai in respect of Khata No. 162 and were shown as Sirdar. 5. An objection was filed by petitioner before CO Pindra, District Varanasi claiming that the aforesaid land was a co-tenancy of ancestors of petitioner and respondents-3, 4, 5 and 6. In 1291 fasali, land comprised of Khata No. 97 was shown in name of Mahangu, Gata No. 103 and 315 were shown in the name of Shiv Niwaj and 99 was shown in the name of Ram Niwas. Thereafter, due to some mistake Hemraj was shown as representative in 1334 fasali. Petitioner had co-tenancy rights over the aforesaid land. 6. Petitioner's objection was rejected by CO Pindra, District Varanasi by order dated 30.08.1973 whereagainst he preferred appeal under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953") before Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as "ASOC"), who allowed appeal vide order dated 25.11.1974 and held that in the land comprising of Khata No. 90 and 162, petitioner has co-tenancy rights upto the extent of 1/2 share. Operative part of order passed by ASOC reads as under: ^^;g vihy Lohdkj djrs gq, fd p0v0 dk fu.kZ; jn~n fd;k tkrk A [kkrk 90 o 162 esa Jh nqD[kh iq= Hkq# dk uke NDdu o flrbZ ds lkFk ÁR;sd [kkrs esa 1@4 Hkkx esa vafdr gks rFkk 3@4 Hkkx esa [kkrk 90 o NDdu o 3@4 Hkkx esa [kkrk 162 esa flrbZ dk uke vafdr jgsA** “By allowing this appeal, the order of the Consolidation Officer is dismissed. The name of Shri Dukkhi S/o Bhuru be recorded for 1/4th portion in each of Khata nos. 90 and 162 along with Chhakkan and Sitai; and let the name of Sitai be recorded in 3/4th portion of Khata no. 90, and let the name of Chhakkan be recorded in 3/4th portion of Khata no. 162.” (English Translation by Court) 7. Chhakkan and two others preferred Revision before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "DDC"), who has allowed Revision vide order dated 08.10.1975 and set aside order passed by ASOC. 8. DDC has relied on the fact that in Basic year, name of petitioner was not shown in Revenue record and, therefore no share could have been allotted to petitioner. Relevant findings recorded by DDC read as under: ^^pwWafd vk/kkj o”kZ esa fuxjkuhdrkZx.k dk uke vafdr gSA vr% vius dFku dks fl) djus dk Hkkj foi{kh nqD[kh ij Fkk ijUrq og fuHkkus esa vlQy jgsA fo}ku lgk;d cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcanh us [kkrk la0 90 o 162 esa nqD[kh dks 1@2 fgLls dk lg&[kkrsnkj ekuk gSA mUgksaus bldk vk/kkj xzke chdkiqj dh [krkSuh 1291 Q0 ds vadu dks ekuk gS ijUrq xkVk la0 97@2 {ks0 0-19 vkSj xkVk la0 103@2 {ks 0-10 ij eqNr dk’r dsoy 5 lky vafdr gS ftl esa nqD[kh dks fdlh Ádkj lg[kkrsnkjh ugha ÁkIr gks ldrh A** “Since the names of the revisionists are recorded as against the base year; hence, the onus to prove the statement given by Dukkhi rested with him but he failed to do so. The Ld. Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation has treated Dukkhi to be a Sah-Khatedaar (Co-holder of land) for 1/2th portions in Khata Nos. 90 and 162. The Ld. Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation has treated Dukkhi to be a Sah-Khatedaar (Co-holder of land) for 1/2th portions in Khata Nos. 90 and 162. He has based the same on the entry made in the Khatauni of Village Bikapur for Fasli year 1291 but the cultivation is recorded to have been done only for 5 years on Gata No. 97/2 measuring 0.19 and Gata No. 103/2 measuring 0.10, which cannot entitle Dukkhi to any type of joint land holding.” (English Translation by Court) 9. It is contended that DDC has found family tree to be correct and that Mahangu, Sri Niwaj and Ram Niwaj are successors of Devi Charan. It has also noticed that Revisionist's claim before DDC was that land comprising Khata No. 90 is self acquired property of his father. Same was the claim in respect of Khata No. 161. It has also found that in the Jamabandi, Devi Charan had three sons Mahangu, Sri Niwaj and Ram Niwaj and all were mentioned in 1307 fasali. It has also admitted that in Naqual Bandobast 1291 fasali disputed land was shown in the name of Mahangu, Shiv Niwaj and Ram Niwaj and the same continued in 1307 fasali. If that be so, unless a family settlement or partition is proved to show that property was divided between co-tenants, presumption would be that joint family status of property continued particularly considering the concept of joint family in Hindu Law. 10. In Hindu Law, concept of joint family has been given great respect and honour. In India and particularly among Hindus, the family bonds are not only very strong but they have given right to a society who believe in a joint family going to the extent of even the concept of village community. 11. In the concept of property, there have been three layers, i.e., Patriarchal Family, Joint Family and Village Community. The patriarchal family is headed by father and consists of his offsprings. Joint family may include within itself members, related to each other, though not having common ancestors and goes beyond family flowing from father himself. 12. It is said that unlike England, where the concept of ownership, as a rule, is single, independent and unrestricted, and it may be joint, but the presumption is to the contrary. It may be restricted but only in special instances and under special provisions. 12. It is said that unlike England, where the concept of ownership, as a rule, is single, independent and unrestricted, and it may be joint, but the presumption is to the contrary. It may be restricted but only in special instances and under special provisions. The situation in India is totally different. Here joint ownership is normally the rule and may be presumed to succeed until contrary is proved. If an individual holds property in severalty, in the next generation, it will relapse into a stand of joint-tenancy. A Hindu may start with nothing and make a self acquired fortune by dint of his own labour, capacity and merits and he is the absolute owner of estate but in a couple of generations his offspring would ramify in a joint family, like a banian tree which also stands as a single shoot. If the property is free from hands of its acquirer, it will become fettered in the hands of his heirs. 13. The "patriarchal family" may be defined as a group of natural or adoptive descendants, held together by subjection to the eldest living ascendant, father, grand-father, great-grandfather. Whatever be a formal prescription of law, the Head of such a group is always in practice, despotic; and he is the object of respect, if not always of affection, which is probably seated deeper than any positive institution. Manu says, "three persons, a wife, a son and a slave, are declared by law to have in general no wealth exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn is regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong." Narada says, "he is of age and independent, in case his parents be dead; during their lifetime he is dependent, even though he be grown old." 14. The "joint family" is normally a transition form from "patriarchal family" at the death of common ancestors or Head of house. If the family chose to continue united, the eldest son would be the natural head. The former one is head of family by natural authority, the later other can only be so by a delegated authority. He is primus but inter pares. 15. An undivided Hindu family thus is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship. The presumption, therefore, is that members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union unless contrary is established. 16. He is primus but inter pares. 15. An undivided Hindu family thus is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship. The presumption, therefore, is that members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union unless contrary is established. 16. If the family was joint headed by a karta and land revenue was also being paid in respect to land acquired in the name of certain individual members of joint family from the joint family funds, onus lies upon persons who claim that property was acquired from individual resources and not from joint family fund otherwise the property acquired would constitute a joint family corpus and if not proved otherwise, presumption would lie in favour of joint family property. 17. The view expressed above has also been taken earlier by this Court in Harey Krishna Agrawal And Others Vs. Jairaj Krishna (Dead) and others 2013 (7) ADJ 447 , Kunj Bihari & Others Vs. Ganga Sahai Pandey & others 2013 (8) ADJ 97 and First Appeal No. 629 of 2005 (Amar Nath Kapoor And Others. Vs. Krishna Gopal Kapoor And Others) decided on 25.05.2016. 18. In view of above, merely on the basis of changes in subsequent Revenue record, it cannot be said that joint tenancy came to an end and disputed property came to be owned by petitioner and respondents-3, 4, 5 and 6 separately, i.e. in the manner as aforesaid since it is well settled that mutation does not confer any right or title. 19. Supreme Court very recently, in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) th. L.R. Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and others 2019 (2) SCALE 336 , referring to various earlier authorities on the subject, has said: “The law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh and Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh and Anr. v. Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ).” (emphasis added) 20. When in 1291 fasali to 1307 fasali disputed land was shown in co-tenancy of three sons of Shiv Charan, unless there is something on record to show that there was a partition or family settlement, co-tenancy rights could not have come to an end and could not have been presumed to have ended, that too, only on the basis of Revenue entries. 21. No partition or family settlement has been shown or proved by respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 and before this Court also nothing has been shown. In view thereof, simply on the basis of entries in subsequent Revenue record where names of respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 were only mentioned, in my view DDC committed manifest error in non suiting petitioner and interfering in the findings of fact recorded by ASOC in its order dated 25.11.1974. Hence, I do not find that order of DDC can be sustained. 22. The writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.10.1975 passed by respondent-1 is hereby set aside; and, order dated 25.11.1974 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) is hereby restored and confirmed.