Lakshmi Prasad, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) On the death of his brother Kalicharan who left tenancy in two different villages the petitioner applied for the mutation of his name over those tenancies of Kalicharan on the allegation that he being the sole heir, was entitled to succeed the same. His application was opposed by opposite party No. 4 who claimed himself to be the son of Kalicharan. The Consolidation Officer found that opposite party No. 4 being the son of Kalicharan was the preferential heir and, accordingly directed mutation to be effected in the name of opposite party No. 4. The petitioner went up in appeal which was dismissed. The petitioner then went up in revision before opposite party No. 1 and the same was also dismissed on a finding of fact that according to the custom in the community of the parties the wife of the petitioner had a divorce from him and thereafter married Kalicharan of which wedlock opposite party No. 4 is the issue. The present petition is filed for the quashing of the order passed in revision by the Deputy Director mainly on the ground that the finding of fact recorded in it proceeds on no evidence to support it.
(3.) The petition is opposed by opposite party No. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. As already mentioned, the only point that he has urged before me is that there is no evidence to support the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director. In support of his contention, he has read material portions of statements of the witnesses examined by opposite party No. 4. It is true that these witnesses do not state in so many words that a custom prevailed in the community to which the parties belonged under which a woman after getting divorce from her husband could marry another person validly. All the same, the trend of the statements made by the witnesses appears to be the same. It has to be borne in mind that this Court does not sit as Court of appeal and a finding of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities is not to be interfered with unless it be possible to come to a definite conclusion that there is no evidence whatsoever to justify it. Such conclusion does not appear to be a feasible in the instant case having regard to the statements of the witnesses examined by opposite party No. 4.;