ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition has. been directed against the judgment of Shri A.K. Sharka, I.A.S. Member, Board of Revenue, dated 13-9-1978. The reference arose under the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a mutation case. The opposite Party Rama Shankar Shukla and others had applied for mutation on the basis of a sale deed dated 21-7-1979 executed in their favour by Chhote Lal. The petitioner, being daughter of Chhote Lal, had contested the claim of the vendees on the ground that the sale deed was a fictitious document. The learned Board of Revenue as well as the trial court gave judgments for the contesting opposite parties and aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the impugned orders decided the question of title in favour of the contesting opposite parties and the impugned orders are patently erroneous and cast a cloud on the title of the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgments. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. The impugned orders only direct the name of the contesting opposite parties to be recorded in revenue records over the disputed land. It is well known that no writ petition lies against the order in a mutation case. The findings recorded in mutation case are not final and res judicata in a subsequent title suit..The petitioner can establish her claim in the disputed land in a properly constituted title suit. 5. To my mind it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgments. The view expressed by me above is supported by my earlier view reported in 1981 All W.C. 185 : ( AIR 1981 All 167 ), Majid v. Munafa. It as well as the view expressed in 1984 All W.C.968 : (1985 All U 70) Smt. Lakhmati v. Board of Revenue. 6. The view expressed by me above is supported by my earlier view reported in 1981 All W.C. 185 : ( AIR 1981 All 167 ), Majid v. Munafa. It as well as the view expressed in 1984 All W.C.968 : (1985 All U 70) Smt. Lakhmati v. Board of Revenue. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1975 All 125 , Rudra Pratap v. Board of Revenue, U.P. wherein the following observation has been made in Paragraph 2 of the judgment as below : "In that case no doubt it was held that mutation proceedings ordinarily relate to the question of possession and do not decide the question of title for which there is a separate remedy by way of a suit and as such the High Court should not interfere in the Order passed in mutation proceedings. But it was also observed in that case this consideration should not be applied in cases where the question of title is also decided in mutation proceedings. In my opinion the present case belongs to that category of cases inasmuch as the Board of Revenue has proceeded to decide the question of title." 7. Ordinarily the question of mutation involves the question of title of the party concerned but the same is decided on the basis of possession over the disputed land. Section 40A of U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as below : - "No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding." 8. To my mind, the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the observation made in Jaipal minor v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad reported in AIR 1957 All 205 as well as the provisions of S. 40A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act quoted above. 9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners claim shall be decided in a regular title suit irrespective of any finding recorded in the impugned judgments. No order as to costs.