ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition the petitioners are claiming property of Ram Sunder Rai, deceased, as his sons whereas the contesting opposite party Ramdeo Rai is claiming the property of the deceased Ram Sunder Rai being his sister's son. 2. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) gave judgments for the petitioners whereas the revisional authority has upheld the claim of the contesting opposite party. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional authority the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the revisional authority has patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioners as it has not taken into account the ceremonies of the marriage proved by the petitioners. 4. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the presumption of validity of marriage between the petitioners' mother and Ram Sunder Rai due to long co-habitation was not raised, hence the finding recorded by the revisional authority stand vitiated in law. 5. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the revisional authority has patently erred in relying upon the affidavit filed before it which cannot be substantive evidence in the case, hence its finding deserves to be quashed. 6. Lastly it has been contended that the revisional authority has failed to consider many documents relied upon by the first two courts, hence its findings are not based on relevant evidence on record and deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that on the finding of fact recorded by the revisional authority the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party the revisional authority was fully justified in relying upon the affidavit mentioned in the impugned judgment and on that score the finding of the revisional authority cannot be challenged. Lastly it has been submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are in the realm of appraisal of evidence, hence they cannot be seriously taken note of in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court and the impugned judgment is immune from attack in the present proceedings. 8. Lastly it has been submitted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners are in the realm of appraisal of evidence, hence they cannot be seriously taken note of in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court and the impugned judgment is immune from attack in the present proceedings. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length I think that the third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners has force. The revisional authority has expressed itself in the following words : " anksuksa i{kksa ds bu 'kiFk i=ksa ij jke nso }kjk nkf[ky jftLV~j ua0 4 QkStnkjh udy ds :i esa vfrfjDr lk{; fopkj djus ls jkenso dk dFku o 'kiFk i= vf/kd lR; izrhr gksrk gSa vkSj lkejFkh uke dh fdlh nqljh vkSjr o jke lqUnj iq= nhiu uke dk dksbZ vU; O;fDr lkfcr gksus ls ;g lR; izrhr gksrk gS fd lkejFkh jke lqUnj jk; dh fookfgrk iRuh ugha gSA " 9. In 1964 Rev Dec. 236 Kedar Pandey v. Ram Rain a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as below : "It is obvious that the affidavit could not constitute evidence in spite of the fact that there was no counter affidavit by the defendant." 10. In AIR 1963 SC 1 Vishwanathan v. Abdul Wajid their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated that the evidence in form of affidavits, which were not ordered to be filed in support of a fact, cannot be read in evidence. 11. In AIR 1977 Delhi 73 Prakash Rai v. J.N. Dhar a learned single Judge of that Court has indicated as below (at P. 74) : "As regards the affidavits, copies of such documents cannot be taken in evidence. What 'evidence' means and includes is defined in S. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Affidavits are not included in its definition. On the contrary, affidavits have been expressly excluded by virtue of S. I of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore affidavits cannot be taken in evidence under any provision of the statute. This legal position has not been combated by the learned counsel for the defendants. So, copies of the affidavits be allowed to be produced in evidence." 12. In the present case the sole question involved is whether the petitioners are sons of Ram Sunder Rai deceased. Therefore affidavits cannot be taken in evidence under any provision of the statute. This legal position has not been combated by the learned counsel for the defendants. So, copies of the affidavits be allowed to be produced in evidence." 12. In the present case the sole question involved is whether the petitioners are sons of Ram Sunder Rai deceased. The affidavit filed before the revisional authority on behalf of the contesting opposite party indicated that the plaintiffs' father was convicted under S. 498 I.P.C. and an extract from the Register No. 4 dated 30-9-1953 related to the petitioner's father, hence the petitioners were not held as sons of Ram Sunder Rai deceased. In negativing the claim of the petitioners the revisional authority has placed reliance upon the affidavit filed by the contesting opposite party Ram Deo, which in law could not be treated as substantive evidence. In view of the ruling mentioned above I think that the revisional authority has patently erred in relying upon the affidavit filed by Ram Deo. It is difficult to say that how far the mind of the revisional authority was influenced by the aforesaid affidavit in arriving at its conclusion. The ends of justice demand that the impugned judgment of the revisional authority should be quashed and the revisional authority be asked to record its finding excluding the affidavit from its consideration or it should be asked to provide reasonable opportunities to the parties to examine and cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit with a view to make the affidavit as substantive evidence in the case and thereafter record its finding on the claims of the parties. 13. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has cited a large number of rulings to support his contention. In view of O. 19 of the Civil Procedure Code mentioned above the impugned judgment would be a good piece of evidence and was rightly relied upon by the revisional authority. In my opinion the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence they are not. being dealt with in this judgment. 14. Since the case is going back to the revisional authority for recording findings on the claims of the parties, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners mentioned above. being dealt with in this judgment. 14. Since the case is going back to the revisional authority for recording findings on the claims of the parties, it is not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners mentioned above. It would be open to the counsel for the parties to canvass the revisional authority on their view points hereafter, and the revisional authority would deal with them strictly in accordance with law. 15. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional authority dated 8-6-83 is hereby quashed and the revisional authority is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.