JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.12.1976 passed by the Board of Revenue in a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, filed by the respondent no. 1 claiming l/3d share. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent no. 1 claimed l/3rd share being one of the sons of Ram Dayal and the remaining ?rd share was of the petitioners nos. 1 and 2. But as there was some dispute about the apportionment of the land revenue, hence the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioners denying that the respondent no. 1 was the son of Ram Dayal. But later on, on the close of the evidence before trial Court the petitioners made an application that Radhey Lal was not male, nor a female, hence he was not entitled to succeed Ram Dayal and as such the suit may be dismissed. 4. The trial court by his order dated 13.6.1973 decreed the suit after appreciating the evidence on the record and holding that the respondent no. 1 was a male and entitled to succeed his father, Ram Dayal. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated 16.6.197 and the respondent no. 1 filed a second appeal which was allowed on 14.12.1976. It is against the latter order that the present petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari. 5. The controversy in the present petition is in a very narrow compass. The only question is whether Radhey Lal being the son of Ram Dayal whether he was a male or female, both or none of it. From the evidence on record it is clear that he was son of Ram Dayal, but the controversy was raised after the close of evidence of the petitioners that he was neither male nor female, hence he was not entitled to succeed. It has been held by the trial court ana also by the second appellate court that Radhey Lal was the son of Ram Dayal and that he was a male person even though there may be some deformation in his genitals. It has been held by the trial court ana also by the second appellate court that Radhey Lal was the son of Ram Dayal and that he was a male person even though there may be some deformation in his genitals. The findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are perfectly correct and even after holding that Radhey Lal was the son of Ram Dayal the suit was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that he was unable to procreate. Hence the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner has correctly been set aside by the Board of Revenue. 6. It has been however argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Board of Revenue has not set aside the findings of the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner has no doubt recorded a finding that the plaintiff was of his father Ram Dayal, but he was of the view that he was not a male and was not entitled to succeed. But after considering the evidence on record including voter list, Kutumb Register and extracts of Khatauni, the Board of Revenue correctly held that Radhey Lal was the son of Ram Dayal. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the meaning of the word male according to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary is masculine or pertaining of the sex that begets young that the son means any male child or offspring. In the instant case no doubt Radhey Lal respondent was born from Ram Dayal and he was accepted by the Society as his and recorded in the documentary evidence including Khatauni, electoral roll etc. as the son of Ram Dayal, but some deformity was pointed not in the male organ of Radhey Lal. But on that account even from dictionary meaning given above it cannot be said that he was not a male person. Learned Counsel for the respondent has cited Modi Medical Jurisprudence and lexicology 20th Edn. On page 304 under Chapter XIII where it has been stated that malformation on account of the absence or non-development of the penis renders a man impotent, but the man is not sterile. Further it has been stated that even the sexual organ can be developed at later stage also and no time limit can be fixed for the same. Hence it cannot be held that Radhey Lal, respondent no. Further it has been stated that even the sexual organ can be developed at later stage also and no time limit can be fixed for the same. Hence it cannot be held that Radhey Lal, respondent no. I was not the male lineal descendant in the male line of descent hence he cannot be deprived of the inheritance of Ram Dayal as a son. 8. In view of the discussions made above I am satisfied that the suit has correctly been decreed and there is no error in the judgment of the Board of Revenue. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.