JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgments of the consolidation authorities whereby the share of the contesting opposite party has been declared as ?rd. 2. In the basic year the petitioners along with Ram Nath, contesting opposite party no. 4, were recorded over the disputed khatas. An objection was filed on behalf of Siya Ram and another with the allegations that Ram Nath was not son of Sheo Dayal and his name should be expunged from the disputed khatas. 3. The claim of the petitioners was resisted by the contesting opposite party and it was stated that the opposite party no. 4 Rain Nath was son of Sheo Dayal and was rightly recorded over the disputed Khatas. 4. All the consolidation authorities have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that Ram Nath was son of Sheo Dayal and they have declared the share of Ram Nath as ?rd. Aggrieved by the decision of the consolidation authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that in view of the statement of Brij Bihari Lal, the consolidation authorities have patently erred in allotting ? share to the opposite party no. 4. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the petitioners had not claimed th share in the disputed Khatas in their objection. It has also been submitted that the so called admission of Brij Behari Lal is no admission in the circumstances of the present case. It has been suggested that a leading question was put to Brij Bihari Lal and in reply to that question, Brij Bihari Lal stated that he did not know when Rustam died and the answer to the question has been noted in such a fashion which leads to an inference that the witness admitted the death of Pritam first. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party there is no clear cut admission of Brij Bihari Lal about the year of deaths regarding sons of Jawahar (the common ancestor). It has also been suggested that when Brij Behari Lal had not seen Bihari, Rustam and Pritam, how could he depose about the year of death to the effect that Pritam died first. It has also been suggested that when Brij Behari Lal had not seen Bihari, Rustam and Pritam, how could he depose about the year of death to the effect that Pritam died first. The suggestion is that the statement of Brij Bihari Lal in this regard is only hearsay evidence and it does not tantamount to any specific admission. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the rejoinder has urged that the question of share is a question of law and it was the duty of the consolidation authorities to have determined the share in accordance with the evidence on record. Since the statement of Brij Bihari Lal has been misunderstood, the determination of share should be quashed and the consolidation authorities should be asked to reexamine the question of share between the parties. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. My attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the ruling reported in Chandi Prasad Rai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 R.D. 190 in support of his contention that mere technicality of pleadings should not stand in the way of the petitioners to claim the share to which they are entitled in law. 9. Another ruling cited on behalf of the petitioners is reported in Kailash Narayan Khare v. Prescribed Authority, Mauranipur, Jhansi and others, 1978 A.W.C. 697 for the proposition that it is the duty of the consolidation authorities to determine the share of the parties. 10. The third ruling cited on behalf of the petitioners is reported in Smt. Bhuria and others v. Board of Revenue, 1970 R.D. 466 wherein it has been observed as below :- "The fact that she did not claim any share in the written statement would also be immaterial because the instant suit was for division of a holding. In such a suit the court is liable to adjudicate the share of the various co-sharers in the holding and in the interest of justice, to award the share found to belong to each of the parties to the litigation." 11. In such a suit the court is liable to adjudicate the share of the various co-sharers in the holding and in the interest of justice, to award the share found to belong to each of the parties to the litigation." 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that even if the petitioners had not claimed th share in their objection but the question was before the consolidation authorities as is evident from the issues framed in the case and it was the bounden duty of the consolidation authorities to have determined the share of the parties in accordance with law. 12. In reply the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in Haji Mohammad Saeed and others v. Mohammad and others, 1965 A.L.J. 324 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below : "It is hardly necessary to emphasise that estimates as to age and time are very frequently inaccurate, and before an argument on a matter vitally affecting the rights of the parties and the result of a case can be founded on the basis of a statement made as to age or time by a party or a witness, the question of age or time, as the case may be, should be specifically raised or at least brought into prominence so that a statement in regard to that matter may be made with care and sense of responsibility and such inaccuracy as may be due only to imperfect recollection or mental indolence may be avoided." 13. Relying on the aforesaid observation the learned counsel for the opposite party contends that the statement of Brij Bihari Lal to the effect that Pritam died first should not be treated as admission and the petitioners cannot derive any benefit on the statement of Brij Bihari Lal in support of his contention. 14. Another ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party is reported in Babu Ram v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1937 All. 754 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below : - "...........I do not know upon what Section of the Evidence Act or upon what other law the learned Judge bases his general proposition that a party is bound by the evidence of a witness whom he produces. 754 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below : - "...........I do not know upon what Section of the Evidence Act or upon what other law the learned Judge bases his general proposition that a party is bound by the evidence of a witness whom he produces. No part of the statement of such witness amounts as far as I know to an admission on behalf of the party producing him." 15. Relying upon the above quoted observation, the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted that the statement of Brij Bihari Lal is not an admission of the contesting opposite party no. 4, hence the petitioners cannot build up their claim of larger share in the disputed property in the circumstances of the present case. 16. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The main grievance of the petitioners before the consolidation authorities was that the opposite party no. 4 Ram Nath was not son of Sheo Dayal. That contention having failed, the learned counsel for the petitioners claims larger share on the basis of the statement of a witness adduced on behalf of the opposite party no. 4. There is no quibble that the technicality of pleading does not apply before the consolidation authorities but the parties should know the claim of each other in the present case, the petitioner would be entitled to a larger share in the property on the ground that amongst the brothers Pritam (ancestor of the contesting opposite party) died first and also on the circumstances that at least Bihari had died after Pritam. When the petitioners had not taken specific plea in this regard the opposite party was not in a position to controvert those allegations or to lead any evidence in that regard. The absence of the grounds for the claim of larger share in the objection is a material defect. It cannot be ignored saying that technicality of pleadings before consolidation authorities is inapplicable. The statement of Brij Bihari Lal is also not very precise ana categorical. The statement made by him to the effect that he had not seen Pritam, Rustam and Bihari and his statement in that context to the effect that Pritam died first cannot be characterised as a precise statement or admission. The statement of Brij Bihari Lal is also not very precise ana categorical. The statement made by him to the effect that he had not seen Pritam, Rustam and Bihari and his statement in that context to the effect that Pritam died first cannot be characterised as a precise statement or admission. Moreover, it appears that his inference about the death of Pritam is based on some hearsay evidence. The so called admission of a witness named Brij Bihari Lal stands on a different footing, it is not the admission of the opposite party which can be termed as conclusive. 17. To my mind the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners are entitled to a larger share on the basis of the evidence on record is not at all substantiated. All the consolidation authorities have also recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioners have failed to prove as to when Bihari died. If Bihari died during the life time of Pritam, the determination of share by the consolidation authorities cannot be characterised as patently erroneous The question raised on behalf of the petitioners requires investigation into questions of fact and the evidence led in the case and attached with the writ petition does not satisfy me that the impugned judgment suffers from any patent error of law. The consolidation authorities have decided the claims of the parties on material on record and they have not adhered to any technicality, hence the petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of the rulings cited on their behalf. 18. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear there own costs.