JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J 1. THIS writ petition is against the judgment of Sri Balwant Ram, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur dated 7-7-1973 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. 2. THE only point involved in the present writ .petition is whether the petitioner is son of Usman and entitled to the property belonging to Usman. The Consolidation Officer accepted the claim of the petitioner through his judgment dated 6-6-1972, but the appellate court and the revisional court have negatived the claim of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have failed to consider the documentary evidence with the result that their finding stands vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. Secondly he contends that the petitioner being co-tenure-holder is entitled to the disputed property on the principle of survivorship under section 175 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. 3. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 4. IN my opinion the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court and confirmed by the revisional court to the effect that the petitioner is not the son of Usman is a pure finding of fact whereas the document referred to by the petitioner appears to have been considered by the appellate court and the revisional court. The only document emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioner having not been considered by the two authorities is the mutation application in which the name of the petitioner was shown as son of Usman. It is note-worthy that on the death of Usman the application was moved by the petitioner and any entry favouring the petitioner would be nothing but admission of the petitioner himself. Non-consideration of such admission would not result in bringing any patent error in the impugned judgment. If the aforesaid document has not been specifically dealt with by the appellate authority and the revisional court, it appears difficult to say that the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority and the revisional Court suffer from any patent error or they can be characterised as perverse or arbitrary. I think that the petitioner has rightly been held as not son of Usman. 5. I think that the petitioner has rightly been held as not son of Usman. 5. THE moment it is accepted that the petitioner is not son of Usman, he can never be a co-tenure-holder of the disputed land. Because a person, if recorded only as a co-tenure-holder, would not become a co-tenure-holder if in law and on the materials on record it is apparent that he is not a co-tenure holder. In the present case, no question of devolution in favour of the petitioner under section 175 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act arises. 6. BOTH the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail and the writ petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly I dismiss the writ petition add direct the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.