JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. -By means of this writ petition the plaintiffs-petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgments of the revenue courts, opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 in the present writ petition whereby their claim for sole sirdari right in the disputed plots has been negatived. Their claim for declaration to the effect that Ram Bharose was not a co-tenant with the plaintiffs has also been refused. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details it appears that there was a dispute between the parties as to whether Ram Bharose was son of Sarju or illegitimate son of Kedar Nath. The plaintiff had approached the revenue allegations that the disputed properties were sole acquisition of Kali Charan and that Ram Bharose was not son of Sarju hence his name was wrongly recorded over the disputed land which necessitated the filing of the suit. The defence in the case was denial of the plaintiff's claim and assertion that the disputed property was ancestral property and that the defendant Ram Bharose was son of Sarju and was rightly recorded as co-tenure-holder of the disputed land. All the revenue courts have given judgments against the plaintiffs-petitioners. Now the plaintiffs have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revenue courts have patently erred in recognising the claim of the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose on the plea of estoppel and acquiescence. It has been stressed that the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose was not son of Sarju hence he could not be recorded as co-tenure-holder of the disputed land even if the disputed land is treated as ancestral property coming down from the time of Kewal in the family. It has also been stressed that there is no categorical finding by the revenue courts regarding actual possession of Ram Bharose over the Land in dispute. They have only referred the revenue entries and have casually observed about that the possession of Ram Bharose over the disputed land. 4. It has also been stressed that there is no categorical finding by the revenue courts regarding actual possession of Ram Bharose over the Land in dispute. They have only referred the revenue entries and have casually observed about that the possession of Ram Bharose over the disputed land. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that when the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the disputed plots were not acquired by Kali Charan and that the disputed plots are coming down from the time of Kewal, common ancestor of the parties indicated in the pedigree given in the Trial Court judgment, it is evident that the claim of Ram Bharose as co-tenure-holder was rightly reconginsed by the revenue courts on the basis of inheritence as well as estoppel and acquiescence it has been seriously contended that on the findings recorded by the revenue courts the plaintiffs suit was rightly dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their claim of the disputed land being acquisition of their own ancestor Sri Kali Charan alone. It has been emphasised that the claim of the contesting opposite party Ram Bharosey has been rightly recongised by the revenue courts and judgments in his favour should not be quashed by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 6. Before me the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has stated that the pedigree indicated by the plaintiffs be accepted as correct and the claim of Ram Bharose being son of Surju was abandoned. It has been stressed that Ram Bharose being son of Kedar Nath even according to the allegations of the plaintiffs and the disputed land being ancestral property and standing in the name of Kali Charan in representative capacity, the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose was rightly accepted as co-tenure-holder in the circumstances of the present case. I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting opposite party was not correct. Even, if, every thing is accepted in favour of the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose, he cannot be co-tenure holder in the disputed land during the life-time of his father Kedar Nath. I think that the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting opposite party was not correct. Even, if, every thing is accepted in favour of the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose, he cannot be co-tenure holder in the disputed land during the life-time of his father Kedar Nath. The revenue courts have patently erred in recognising the claim of Ram Bharose as co-tenure-holder on the basis of inheritance during the life-time of his father Kedar Nath. Therefore, the judgments of the revenue courts deserve to be quashed on this short ground alone. 7. As regards the claim of Ram Bharose on the basis of estoppel and acquiescence, I have a feeling that the revenue courts have not examined the evidence from correct perspective. They have been led by the revenue entries (sic) alone and the have not indicated the oral evidence led by the parties on the question of possession when they found the possession of Ram Bharose over the disputed land. The finding indicated by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party in support of his contention that the possession of Ram Bharose for more than 18 years had been accepted by the revenue courts on fair appraisal of evidence led by the parties is not acceptable to me. The ends of justice demand that the so called finding should be quashed and the second appellate court be asked in the circumstances of the present case to re-determine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 8. It is note-worthy that the appellate court has observed that Ram Bharose is an illegitimate son in its judgment. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has emphasised that the finding relates to illegitimacy about the contesting opposite party being Surju's son. It is not at all disputed that Ram Bharosey is one of the descendants of Kewal. After hearing the counsel for the parties I have a feeling that this question need categorical finding in the light of the plaint allegations and evidence on record. On the oral suggestion of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose, it would be safe to accept Ram Bharose as one of the descendents of Kewal. After hearing the counsel for the parties I have a feeling that this question need categorical finding in the light of the plaint allegations and evidence on record. On the oral suggestion of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party Ram Bharose, it would be safe to accept Ram Bharose as one of the descendents of Kewal. Since I am sending the case back to the second appellate court for re-determining the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the pleadings and evidence on record, I think it proper to ask the second appellate court to examine the question whether Ram Bharose can acquire co-tenancy right in the disputed land being illegitimate son or being legitimate son of Kedar Nath in the circumstances of the present case. The bare reading of the judgment of the revenue court indicates that they have accepted the claim of Ram Bharose on the basis of inheritance and to my mind they have patently erred in recognising the claim of Ram Bharose at least on the basis of inheritance during the life time of Kedar Nath in the present case. 9. Lastly on the question of estoppel and acquiescence the finding recorded by the revenue courts are not very happy and it does not appear that they have examined all the relevant oral and documentary evidence on the question of possession, hence their findings stand vitiated in law. It is in the interests of justice that the second appellate court may re-examine and record categorical finding. 10. However, I have also learnt that the village is under consolidation operation. A copy of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was produced before me which indicated that the Consolidation Officer had placed reliance upon the judgment of the highest revenue court. Since I have indicated that the judgments of the revenue courts suffer from patent error of law, they deserve to be quashed and in doing so the second appellate court would be called upon to give reasonable opportunities to the parties and thereafter there are greater chances that the second appeal together with suit would stand abated and parties shall be relegated to contest their claims on merits before the consolidation authorities. No party shall stand in a better way due to wrong judgments of revenue courts. No party shall stand in a better way due to wrong judgments of revenue courts. Therefore, the ends of justice indicate that the impugned judgment of the second appellate court in the circumstances of the present case be quashed and the second appellate court be directed to deal with the claims of parties in the light of the observations made above. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and impugned judgment of the second appellate court dated 17.10.1977 in second appeal No. 48 (z) of 1972-73 District Banda, Baijnath and another v. Ram Bharose and others, is hereby quashed and it is expected that the second appellate court will pass final order in the second appeal in the light of the discussions made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.