JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - 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. 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. 4. Then learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that the allegation in para 16 of the petition that there is no custom in the community is not controverted in the counter-affidavit. What is alleged in para 13 of the counter-affidavit is that no such plea was taken before the consolidation authorities and had the petitioner taken such a plea, then an issue would have been struck and evidence would have been led on that point. Then it is further alleged in para 13 of the counter-affidavit that, in fact dharauva took place between Kalicharan and Sheo Rani some 25 years ago. Having regard to this allegation in para 13 of the counter-affidavit, it cannot be maintained that the allegation made in para 16 of the petition that there is no such custom is not denied or is admitted. It appears that the case of the petitioner was that opposite party No. 4 was the son of Sheo Rani who had left him and what he contested was that she never married Kalicharan and, as such, opposite party No. 4 was not the son of Kalicharan. That has been found against the petitioner as a fact and that finding of fact cannot be re-agitated in this petition. The petitioner has thus tried to get round that finding by raising a plea that in the absence of any custom justifying such a marriage, opposite party No. 4 could not be the legitimate son of Kalicharan. In my view, the finding of fact recorded by the Deputy Director that the evidence on record led to the conclusion that there was such a custom in the community of the parties, cannot be struck down on the basis that there is no evidence to support it as I have already indicated. As such the petition appears to be without any substance. 5. The petition is dismissed with costs.