ORDER V. K. Mehrotra, J. -In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Ambika Prasad Singh, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Akbarpur and that passed in appeal against it by the District Judge, Faizabad. The dispute in the present petition is confined to the subject-matter which was involved in Civil Appeals 19, 23 and 24 of 1977 filed by the present petitioner before the District Judge. The two other connected appeals which were disposed of by the learned Judge by a common judgment were decided in favour of the present petitioner. 2. As far as the dispute in the present case is concerned, it is the decision in respect of the land involved in the three appeals, namely 19, 23 and 24 of 1977 alone. The appellants before the District Judge in appeal No. 19 of 1977 were Tilakdhari, Ram Chet and Ram Pher who had purchased certain plots belonging to the present petitioner under a sale deed dated June 24, 1972. The Prescribed Authority took the view that the sale deed being of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971 and not being covered by any of the exceptions was liable to be ignored on account of Section 5 (6) of the Act. This view has been upheld by the District Judge. The learned Judge was of the opinion that a sale deed of that date was rightly so ignored and more so as it appeared to him to be not a genuine and bona fide transaction inasmuch as no consideration was paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended before me in respect of this land that the mere fact that the sale deed was of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971 did not ipso facto result in a situation that it must necessarily be ignored unless there was a finding that the sale deed was not covered by one of the special circumstances enumerated in the provision protecting it. According to the submission of the learned counsel the mere fact that no sale consideration passed at the time of the registration of the sale deed was not enough to discard the sale deed without going into any further circumstances about its genuineness. According to the submission of the learned counsel the mere fact that no sale consideration passed at the time of the registration of the sale deed was not enough to discard the sale deed without going into any further circumstances about its genuineness. A perusal of Section 5 (6) of the Act would show that 'where a person is asserting that the sale deed (cannot be ignored albeit being of a date beyond Jan. 24, 1971, the facts on the basis (whereof it is so contended, have to be put forward and established by him. From the judgment of the learned District Judge it does not appear that any such circumstances were placed on behalf of the petitioner before him. Whether the circumstances of the non-passing of consideration in respect of the sale deed at the time of registration was sufficient to discard the authenticity of the transaction is a question essentially depending on appraisal of evidence and it cannot be said to be an error of a nature with which this court usually interferes in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 4. In respect of the subject-matter of civil appeal No. 23 of 1977 before the learned District Judge it is again to be noticed that the appeal had been filed by certain transferees from the petitioner. The emphasis on behalf of the petitioner before the learned, District Judge was that even though the sale deed were of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971 agreements in respect thereof had been entered into much before that date. The learned Judge was, however, of the opinion that being of a date subsequent to Jan. 24, 1971, the sale deeds deserved to be ignored on account of statutory provisions of sub-sec. (6) of Section 5 of the Act and further that the circumstances on record, in his opinion, indicated that the transactions were not bona fide. On this finding, it seems difficult to give relief to the petitioner in respect of the land which was subject-matter of Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1977 before the District Judge. 5. With great emphasis it has been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge committed a manifest error in including the land in the holding of the petitioner which was inherited by Shashikala and Indumati, daughters of his illegally wedded wife Awadh Kumari. 5. With great emphasis it has been urged before me on behalf of the petitioner that the learned District Judge committed a manifest error in including the land in the holding of the petitioner which was inherited by Shashikala and Indumati, daughters of his illegally wedded wife Awadh Kumari. The submission is that in the circumstances in which the petitioner came to marry Smt. Awadh Kumari, the off-springs of that marriage could not be treated to be included in the definition of the family of the petitioner as contemplated by the Act. The submission cannot be accepted. On the facts found by the Prescribed Authority it is clear that the marriage of Smt. Awadh Kumari to the petitioner was void. Irrespective, however, of the character of the marriage, the off-springs of the said marriage would be entitled to inherit the property from their parents under Section 16 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by Act 58 of 1976. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the inclusion of the property which Shashikala and Indumati inherited from the petitioner in the holding of the petitioner was a patent error of law committed by the learned District Judge. In any case the marriage with Smt. Awadh Kumari having been admitted as also the fact that Shashikala and Indumati were born to her out of that marriage, the ends of justice require that the petitioner be refused relief on a plea like the one which has been pressed before me when this Court is dealing with the matter in its extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. In my opinion the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.