JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition the disputed khatas are 111, 120 and 126. Over Khata No. Ill Ram Dular and Ram Kumar along with others were recorded in the basic year. Ram Kumar had filed an objection claiming share in the aforesaid khata and had stated that the name of Ram Dular was wrongly recorded. According to Ram Kumar the aforesaid khata was subject matter of gift deed dated 24.8.1926 and Ram Kumar alone was entitled to the share of his grand-father Durga. 2. Over khata No. 120 Ram Kumar and Ram Dular along with Ram Dhan and Sampat were recorded. In the aforesaid Khata Ram Kumar had claimed ⅔ share and Ram Dular had claimed along with Ram Kuinar ⅔ share in in the aforesaid khata. It appears that in this khata also Ram Kumar denied the claim of Ram Dular and had asserted ⅔ share exclusively. 3. Over khata No. 126 Ram Dular and Ram Kumar were recorded and at the time of Partal their share was denoted half and half. Ram Kumar had denied the claim of Ram Dular and had asserted his exclusive right in the aforesaid khata on the basis of the gift deed dated 24.8.1926 in favour of Ram Kumar. 4. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) gave judgment against Ram Kumar and also partly against Ram Dular regarding Khata No. 120. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first two Courts Ram Kumar opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition had preferred a revision and the petitioner Ram Dular had also preferred a revision petition regarding khata No. 120. The revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and allowed the revision petition filed by opposite party Ram Kumar. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the petitioner was entitled to the share claimed in all the khatas in dispute on the basis of the blending by the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar as he had treated the disputed property as joint family property. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the petitioner was entitled to the share claimed in all the khatas in dispute on the basis of the blending by the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar as he had treated the disputed property as joint family property. 7. Secondly it has been contended that on the principles of estoppel and acquiescence the petitioner has got half share in the property allotted to the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar by the revisional Court. 8. Thirdly it has been contended that in khata No. 120 share of Ram Kumar was enlarged when really revision petition was filed by the petitioner. 9. Fourthly it has been contended that the documentary evidence has not been considered by the revisional Court. 10. Fifthly it has been urged that the revisional Court has failed to apply its mind to the gift deed relied upon by them. 11. Sixthly it has been contended that ex-parte, decree in favour of the petitioner has been discarded when the proceedings for setting aside the ex-parte decree is still pending. 12. Seventhly the rent receipt on the record has not been considered by the revisional Court. 13. Eighthly oral evidence has not been weighed by the revisional Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the revisional Court should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the revisional Court. 14. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the revisional Court has appraised the pleadings and evidence on record and has arrived at correct conclusion, hence the impugned judgment should not be interfered with. It has been suggested that the attacks of the learned counsel for the petitioner are in the realm of the appraisal of evidence by the revisional Court, which cannot be a ground for interference with the impugned judgment. 15. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 16. My attention has been drawn to the rulings reported in Lakkireddi Chenna Venkata Reddi and others v. Lakkireddi Lakshmana AIR 1963 S.C. 1601 . 15. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 16. My attention has been drawn to the rulings reported in Lakkireddi Chenna Venkata Reddi and others v. Lakkireddi Lakshmana AIR 1963 S.C. 1601 . T. Mahalaxmiamma and others v. N.S. Radhakrishna Rao and others AIR 1968 Mysore 229, and G. Narayana Raju v. G. Ghamaraju and others AIR 1968 S.C. 1276 , and it has been contended that the disputed property was treated as joint family property by the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar, hence the petitioner's share was wrongly negatived therein by the revisional Court. 17. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon Para 227 of Hindu Law which deals with the question of blending by co-parcener regarding his separate property. In order to prove blending of the disputed property by Ram Kumar it was necessary for the petitioner to establish that Ram Kumar voluntarily threw the disputed property with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein and the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to invite my attention to any such evidence on record in the present case. Therefore, I think that the petitioner cannot succeed in claiming share in the disputed property on the principle of blending by Ram Kumar. In my opinion the theory of blending set up by the petitioner was rightly not accepted by the revisional Court in the circumstances of the present case. 18. Regarding second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is sufficient to indicate that it has not been demonstrated to me what representation was made by the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar and how the petitioner acted on that representation detriment to his interest regarding the disputed property. Even the judgments of the first two Courts, which recognised the claim of the petitioner, do not appear to have recognised the claim of the petitioner on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence. It is also doubtful in the circumstances of the present case as to whether the petitioner had pressed his claim on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence before the consolidation authorities. It is also doubtful in the circumstances of the present case as to whether the petitioner had pressed his claim on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence before the consolidation authorities. However, on the materials on record it has not been established that the petitioner has done anything detriment to his interest on the representation of Ram Kumar, hence I think in the circumstances of the present case that the petitioner cannot claim any share in the disputed property on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence. 19. Regarding third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is sufficient to indicate that the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar had also preferred a revision petition against the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and at his instance the revisional court enlarged the share of Ram Kumar. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is against the documents. It is wrong to say that on the revision of the petitioner the share of the contesting opposite party was enlarged. 20. Regarding fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is note-worthy that the attacks of the learned counsel for the petitioner are in the realm of the appraisal of evidence by the revisional court. 21. I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as some of the documents attached with the writ petition in the shape of oral evidence and gift-deed in favour of the contesting opposite party, and I am not in a position to say that the revisional court has patently erred in arriving at its conclusion. Even if I take different view from the conclusions arrived at by the revisional court it would not be a good ground for interference with the impugned judgment. In my opinion the view taken by the revisional court cannot be characterised either perverse or without any basis in evidence. Therefore, on the aforesaid contention also the petitioner cannot succeed in getting any relief from this Court 22. As regards sixth contention it is note-worthy that the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner has been set aside and the matter is pending before the revisional court. Therefore, on the aforesaid contention also the petitioner cannot succeed in getting any relief from this Court 22. As regards sixth contention it is note-worthy that the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner has been set aside and the matter is pending before the revisional court. If the correct law is applied, the proceedings should stand abated under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act because in the circumstances of the present case when the consolidation started in the village the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner had already been set aside, hence the suit was pending at the stage of revision before the Board of Revenue. Therefore, the revisional Court has not patently erred in the circumstances of the present case in ignoring the ex-parte decree in favour of the petitioner. 23. In the result all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner fail. The bare reading of the gift deed in favour of the contesting opposite party indicates that the disputed property was gifted to the contesting opposite party Ram Kumar. The theory set up by the petitioner and his mother regarding the effect of gift deed is against the tenor of the document, though the stand taken by the contesting opposite party might appear somewhat un-equitable, but it cannot be said that the revisional Court has patently erred in construing the gift deed in the circumstances of the present case. It is also noteworthy, that the petitioner has also succeeded in obtaining some property of his grandfather (NANA) and he had not treated the property as joint family property. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his client has no objection to treat that property as joint family property. To my mind such stand at this stage would not help the petitioner in claiming share in the disputed property in any manner. 24. For the foregoing discussions the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.