JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - The only question involved in this case is whether petitioner's father Ram Prasad was son of Sukhai? According to the case of the petitioner, Sukhai has two sons - Bachcha and Ram Prasad. Petitioner is the son of Ram Prasad and Ram Sundar is the son of Bachcha, who is father of respondent Nos, 4 to 6. But according to the case of the respondents, Sukhai had only one son - Bachcha and Ram Prasad was 'tarail' son of Sukhai. Therefore, he was not entitled to be recorded as co-tenure holder along with the respondents. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. 2. All the Consolidation Authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the finding that Ram Prasad was 'tarail' son of Sukhai and not entitled for any share. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders of the Consolidation Authorities by way of the present writ petition before this Court. 3. It appears that before the consolidation of holdings proceeding started in the village, Ram Prasad had filed a suit in the Civil Court for declaration of his title in the land in dispute. The suit was decreed by the trial Court with the finding that Ram Prasad was son of Sukhai. But that finding was reversed by the lower appellate court. The second appeal was filed, which was abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on the commencement of the Consolidation of Holdings Proceeding in the village. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has placed reliance solely on the judgment of the Civil Judge, which was not in existence as the suit itself had been abated by the order of this Court in view of consolidation of holdings proceeding in the village. The learned counsel further contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into consideration the entry made in khatauni of 1359-F where Ram Prasad has been recorded as the son of Sukhai. The Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly placed reliance on the statement of Ram Prasad regarding the age given by him in that statement. According to the learned counsel, the illiterate villagers are not aware of the exact age and similar statement was also made by Ram Sunder, father of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation wrongly placed reliance on the statement of Ram Prasad regarding the age given by him in that statement. According to the learned counsel, the illiterate villagers are not aware of the exact age and similar statement was also made by Ram Sunder, father of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in applying double standard in consideration of the evidence in this case. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that the judgment of the Civil Judge was the subject matter of the Second Appeal and the suit along with appeal was abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the order of this Court. When the suit itself had abated, a finding given in that suit by any court at any stage would be no evidence but apart from the judgment of the Civil Judge, the Consolidation Authorities have also taken into consideration the statement of the father of the petitioner and relying on that statement, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. I he Deputy Director of Consolidation did not think it necessary to consider the statement of Ram Sunder, lather of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and he took into consideration only the statement of Ram Prasad, father of the petitioner and relied on the same. It is not correct to say that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has applied double standard in considering the evidence in this case. The burden of proving the fact that Ram Prasad was son of Sukhai was on the petitioner and he failed to prove this fact by any reliable evidence on the record. His grievance before the subordinate authorities was made for non-consideration of any material evidence. The Consolidation Officer has fully considered the material evidence adduced by the parties and has come to the conclusion that "All the documentary and oral evidence of file goes to show that Ram Prasad was not the son of Sukhai." The judgment of the Deputy Director oi Consolidation is a judgment of affirmance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the judgments of the Consolidation Authorities, which may justify interference in the writ jurisdiction The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in the judgments of the Consolidation Authorities, which may justify interference in the writ jurisdiction The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.