The instant petition has been preferred alleging that the petitioners are successors of one Shiv Pal, who was claiming rights in respect of the disputed property in question. He has set up his own pedigree indicating that one ancestor, who has three sons, out of which, one Dullar had expired issue-less. Accordingly, the property came in the shares of Jhoda and Bhagwant and from the branch of Bhagwant, Shiv Pal was claiming right. Private respondent No.11 on the other hand has set up their own pedigree and they took the plea that Dullar did not die issue-less, rather he had two sons, namely, Ganga Prasad and Raja Ram and as such the private respondents are heirs of Ganga Prasad and Raja Ram respectively. Since in the pedigree set by the private respondents, Dullar has been described as Raggha @ Dullar @ Radha. Therefore, the controversy which emerged was as to whether Raggha @ Dullar was one and the same person than Dullar. It is in this context that objections were filed before C.O., who did not find favour with the contentions set up by the petitioners and by means of the order dated 06.09.2001 had partly allowed the objections, against which three appeals were preferred by the private respondents and one appeal was preferred by the petitioner. By means of the detailed order dated 01.04.2017, the S.O.C., Unnao allowed the appeal of the petitioners and dismissed the three appeals filed by the private respondents and the order of the C.O. dated 06.09.2001 was modified. Both the contesting sides filed their revisions before D.D.C., Unnao, which has been allowed and the order of C.O. has been affirmed.
