The predecessor of the petitioners Jeev Narain was the bhumidar of the land in dispute.

After his death the names of his legal representatives were recorded in the revenue record
from time to time.

During the consolidation proceedings the assistant

consolidation officer prepared framed chuck of the respective
Chuck holder of said village and the same has been sent for
finalisation before the respondent number 3 therefore the
respondent number 3 invited for filing objections of the
respective Chuck holders therefore the petitioner number 1 to
3 as well respondent number 5 filed their objections before the
respondent number 3.

That the facts of the aforesaid case briefly arises that initially
the petitioner number 1 to 3 instant revision against the order
dated 68 1986 passed by respondent number two as well as
the order dated 20 to 8 1918 passed by respondent number
three during the pendency of aforesaid revision number 676

That it is also pertinent to mention here that as per the family

pedigree of predecessor of Jeevan he had six sons is concerned
in between them no dispute regarding their share but a legal
dispute raised by respondent number 4 regarding his share in
the property of Shivraj showing himself as adopted son of lakru

That however the Shivraj have five sons namely Mahadev,

Bhairav, Bali, Tasal & Lakru in between aforesaid persons the
aforesaid dispute regarding the share of ancestor property
arises. The other persons of the family of jeev Narayan already
won their share of property and they are in exclisuive
possession over their shares.

That petitioners are son of Bhairav, Balli, Tasal Died issue less
and respondent lakru adopted the Vyas Muni i.e. respondent.
the respondent being adopted son of Lakhru he is only entitled
for getting share of luck room that is ½ share in the property
of Shivraj but he claimed more share from the property of
Shivraj on the ground that Balli and Tasal died prior to the date
of Lakar.

Grounds

1. Because bare perusal of compromise decree dated

28.10.1978 it is self evident that the adopter of
respondent number 4, Lakar as well as respondent
number 4 appended their signatures on the aforesaid
compromise decree dated 28.10.1970 and was agree with
the one by 24th share of land of Kota number 163, 155
and 156 but later on in an arbitrary manner he raised his
mood share through their objection before the
consolidation officer, Padrauna by creating confusion in
the death of Balli and Lakar.

2. Because as per the compromise decree dated 28.10.1970

the respondent number 4 is entitled for 1/24 share in the
land of Kolkata number 163, 155 and 156 which is share
of lacquer be the adopted son of Lakar and the aforesaid
decree admitted by the Lakar and his father Harihar,
therefore the claim raised by the respondent number 4 for