K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioners are claiming property of Ram Sunder Rai, deceased, as his sons whereas the contesting opposite party Ramdeo Rai is claiming the property of the deceased Ram Sunder Rai being his sister's son. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) gave judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional authority has upheld the claim of the contesting opposite party. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional authority petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional authority has patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioners as it has not taken into account the ceremonies of the marriage proved by petitioners. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that presumption of validity of marriage between the petitioner's mother and Ram Sunder Rai due to long co -habitation was not raised, hence the finding recorded by the revisional authority stand vitiated in law.
(3.) THE third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional authority has patently erred in relying upon the affidavit filed before it which cannot be substantive evidence in the case, hence its finding deserved to be quashed.;