JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional Court, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before me is that the Parentage of the Petitioner was not challenged by anybody, therefore, the revisional court was wholly unjustified in negativing the claim of the Petitioner. In this regard my attention has been drawn to Paragraph 8 of the ruling reported in Ram Das v. Ishwar Chandra and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1422. 4. In my opinion, that ruling has no application to the facts and circumstances of the Present case. In the Present case it appears that the relevant entry was in favour of Perwa, son of Kaluwa. At some point of time the name of the Petitioner was recorded over the disputed land. While examining the claim of the Petitioner, the revisional court has observed as below at page 42 of the paper book : - "........Aisa ispasht hota hai ki Pirwa putra kaluwa lavald mar gaya aur ukt indraj. Of pratipaksh labh uthana chahete hain. woh Pirwa putra kalwa ki bhumi nahi pa sakte hain. Kyonki uske pita ka naam Khalka hai tatha Pirwa putra Kaluwa dusra byakti siddha hota hai kyonki Pirwa putra Khalka ne is ashay ka koi sakshya nahi diya ki vivadit Bhunii Zamindari ke purv usne kisase kab prapt ki. Isliye pratipaksh ke naam jo indraj abhilekhon men kiya gaya hai woh galat hai vastava men vivadit Bhumi Gaon sabha men nihit honi chahiye thi kyonki Pirwa putra Kaluwa ka koi davedar ubhaipakshon men siddha nahi hota hai ..." 5. Before me it has been strenuously contended that nobody had put any case regarding the doubt about parentage of the petitioner, therefore, the revisional court was wholly unjustified in entertaining a new claim. It is noteworthy that in the relevant year the name of Perwa, son of Kaluwa was recorded. Thereafter on the application of the petitioner, his parentage was noted. Therefore, it w-as incumbent duty upon the petitioner to lead satisfactory evidence to prove his claim. The observation of the revisional court that the petitioner, has failed to lead satisfactory evidence cannot be characterised as perverse or without any basis in evidence. 6. My attention has drawn to the statements of Ram Lal and Ratti. Therefore, it w-as incumbent duty upon the petitioner to lead satisfactory evidence to prove his claim. The observation of the revisional court that the petitioner, has failed to lead satisfactory evidence cannot be characterised as perverse or without any basis in evidence. 6. My attention has drawn to the statements of Ram Lal and Ratti. I have gone through those statements. I do not find that their evidence in law is sufficient to prove the relationship claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not at all inclined to hold that the impugned judgment suffers from any patent error of law. 7. In the result, the Writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.