S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) Proceedings are under section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act which is in respect to adjudication of the title between the parties. One Ram Lal was recorded in the basic year and as he was dead both sides placed their rival claim to the land in dispute setting up their rival pedigree as noted in the impugned orders. After the evidence came from both sides Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioner on proof of his pedigree. Against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer appeal was filed by the opposite parties which was allowed and thereafter revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and thus on the question that who will succeed the property on the proof of rival pedigree judgment of the Consolidation Officer is in favour of the petitioner and that of the appellate authority and Revisional Court is in favour of the opposite parties.
(3.) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although the question in issue relates to a factual aspect but judgment of the appellate authority and the Revisional Court besides being erroneous is totally perverse and thus this Court is to interfere in the matter. Submission is that besides evidence from the side of the petitioner, from the evidence of the opposite parties themselves the version of the petitioner stand fully established. Submission is that as the finding of Courts below are based on extraneous consideration and they are perverse and illegal impugned judgments are liable to be quashed.;