JUDGMENT B. L. Yadav, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 15-11-1977 passed in a proceeding under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts of the case are that one Ram Khelawan was recorded over the plots in dispute and he died. Thereafter his three sons, namely, Chandra Mani, Durg Vijai and Narain along with his grand sons Anurudh and Ambika made application under section 34 of the Act alleging that they have succeeded the deceased and hence their names may be recorded in place of the deceased. One Smt. Shanti was widow of Chandra Bhan, pre-deceased son of Ram Khelawan and Smt. Gujrati was also a widow. Ambika alleging to be grand son of deceased was the son of Smt. Gujrati whereas he alleged himself to be the son of Smt. Shanti Devi. Anrudh has also died and Smt. Lakhpati, his widow applied for being mutated as the widow of the pre-deceased grand-son of the deceased. An objection was filed by Smt. Gujrati and Smt. Lakhpati on the application of Ambika that he was not the grand-son of the deceased Ram Khelawan, hence his name should not be recorded in place of Ram Khelawan. The Tahsildar, Dumariaganj, Basti, by his order dated 26-10-1974 held that Smt. Lakhpati widow of Anurudh and Smt. Gujrati mother of the deceased Ambika may be recorded as the successors of Ram Khelawan. A revision was filed before the Additional Collector by Ambika and that was dismissed by the order dated 27-1-1975. Ambika again filed a revision before the Board of Revenue under section 219 of the Act and the said revision has been allowed by the order dated 15-11-1977. The present petition is directed against this order and the prayer is that by issuing a writ of certiorari, this order may be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 219 of the Act the revision was filed and has been allowed. The present petition is directed against this order and the prayer is that by issuing a writ of certiorari, this order may be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 219 of the Act the revision was filed and has been allowed. As there was no error in the exercise of jurisdiction nor any illegality was committed by the subordinate authorities, hence the Board of Revenue exceeded the jurisdiction in interfering with the findings of fact in allowing the revision holding that name of Ambika, grand son of Ram Khelawan, deceased, shall also be mutated in place of the deceased. It was further urged that the findings of fact could not have been set aside in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 219 of the Act. 4. It has further been urged that the present petition would not be barred by an alternative remedy and he has relied upon Jaipal v. Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad, 1956 AWR 518 and also on Majid v. Manfait, 1981 AWC 185 and State of M. P. v Babu Lal, AIR 1977 SC 1718 . Sri S. D. Pathak on behalf of the respondents urged that the present petition arises out of the mutation proceedings and it has been consistently held by this Court that against orders in mutation proceedings writ petitions are barred by alternative remedy. No right or title of the petitioner have been decided and in case the petitioners feel aggrieved, they can file a regular suit. Sri Pathak has placed reliance upon Jaipal v. Board of Revenue, lv56 AWR 518 and Majid v. Manfait, 1981 AWC 185 , Lakhraj v. Board of Revenue, 1981 RD 18 and Rudra Pratap v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1975 All. 125 . 5. In the instant case although the Tahsildar and the Additional Collector held that Ambika was not the son of Chandra Bhan. Chandra Mani, one of the sons of Ram Khelawan has come in the witness box and he has stated that his real brother has got two sons, namely Ambika and Anurudh. He was the best witness as the parentage of his nephews was involved and in view of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the persons who have special means of knowledge of the pedigree etc. He was the best witness as the parentage of his nephews was involved and in view of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, the persons who have special means of knowledge of the pedigree etc. are the best witnesses and hence I think that the court correctly held that Ambika was also a son of Chandra Bhan and his name also be mutated in place of Ram Khelawan, deceased. As the uncle of Ambika, respondent no. 4, has come in the witness box and has made a statement in favour of the respondent no. 2, hence I think the Board of Revenue has correctly recorded the finding that Ambika was also successor of Ram Khelawan. It is a different matter that under section 219 of the Act, no interference on the question of fact could have been made by the Board of Revenue. But I do not propose to consider this argument as I am of the view that substantial justice has been done between the parties inasmuch as Ambika and Anurudh both have been held to be the grand sons of Ram Khelawan, deceased and even Chandra Mani, one of the sons of Ram Khelawan, has stated that Anurudh and Ambika were both grand sons of Ram Khelawan, deceased and both may be mutated in place of the deceased. 6. In this case it is a fact that proceedings under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act are fiscal proceedings pertaining to the financial matters only. These proceedings do not decide the right and title of the parties. The object of mutation proceedings is as to from whom the State has to recover the land revenue. It becomes immediately imperative to have got the name of some successor mutated in place of the deceased so that the land revenue can be recovered from him. The scope of these proceedings are not that any right or title of any body is sought to be decided. Further this has consistently been held by this Court in Jaipal v. Board of Revenue (supra) and it has been ruled in this case that it has been consistent practice of the High Court not to interfere with order made by the Board of Revenue in cases in which the only question at issue is whether the name of the petitioner should be entered in the record of rights. The record is primarily maintained for revenue purposes and an entry therein has reference only to possession. Such an entry does not ordinarily confer upon the person in whose favour it is made any title of property in question and his right to establish his title thereto is expressly reserved by section 40 3) of the Land Revenue Act (now by section 40-A). Similar view has been held in Lakhraj v. Board of Revenue, (supra). In this case Hon'ble Mehrotra, J. has held that the petitioner has equally efficacious remedy by way of regular suit, hence against orders from mutation proceedings the writ petition, is barred by an alternative remedy. In Rudra Pratap v. Board of Revenue (supra) Hon'ble R. L. Gulati, J. has held that where findings are restricted not to possession, but also to decide the question of title, the interference can be made. But in the instant case no question of title has been decided. The only question was as to who were sons or grand-sons of deceased Ram Khelawan. Such findings as to whether Ambika and Anurudh were the grand sons of the deceased, Ram Khelawan or not were not findings pertaining to question of title. In that case the mutation was not decided just on the question of possession but the title was also decided. Hence interference was made. But the ratio decidendi of that case would not apply to the present case where mutation has been ordered in the name of Ambika, respondent no. 2 only on the ground of possession and no title has been decided. In the case of State of M. P. v. Babu Lal (supra), the case was that a regular suit was filed and M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 is not corresponding to U. P. Land Revenue Act, rather it corresponds to UP ZA and LR Act. In that connection the Supreme Court has ruled that where there was an error and the judgment was in clear violation of law, the matter should be decided finally by the High Court and party should not be directed to file a suit for declaration. The fact of that case are entirely different from the present case. 7. In that connection the Supreme Court has ruled that where there was an error and the judgment was in clear violation of law, the matter should be decided finally by the High Court and party should not be directed to file a suit for declaration. The fact of that case are entirely different from the present case. 7. In view of the discussions made above, as it has been consistently held by this Court that against orders in proceedings for mutation under section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, the writ petition is not the proper remedy, hence I am of the view that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. It shall be open to the petitioner to file a regular suit if so advised. 8. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I, however, make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.