JUDGMENT : R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Dispute in this writ petition is regarding the succession of bhumidhari Khatas No. 123, 129 and sirdari Khatas No. 197, 480, 481, 490, 491 606 of village. Awaon, pargana Mohamadabad, district Azamgarh. In basic year record Petitioners were recorded as sons of Ram Ugrah Singh alias Ugrah. Udai Singh, father of Respondents No. 1 and 2 and real brother of Ram Ugrah Singh, filed an objection claiming that the names of Petitioners are wrongly recorded. They are not sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. The mother of Petitioners Smt. Sumitra was never married to Ram Ugrah Singh and Petitioners are not legitimate sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. Udai Singh claimed that he is entitled to be recorded in the aforesaid khatas being real brother of Ram Ugrah Singh. The claim of Udai Singh was resisted by Petitioners. They claimed that their mother Smt. Sumitra became widow after death of her previous husband Shri Ram Legan Singh and after becoming widow she was remarried to Ram Ugrah Singh and both lived as wife and husband throughout their life and they are legitimate sons of their father Ram Ugrah Singh and are rightly recorded in revenue records. 2. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 6th November, 1963 rejected the claim of Udai Singh from which appeal was filed which too was dismissed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation vide his order dated 13th March, 1964. Aggrieved by both these orders, Udai Singh filed a revision. The revision was, however, allowed vide order dated 16th September, 1965. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Petitioners filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4744 of 1965. This writ petition, after hearing both the parties, was allowed by this Court on 11th March, 1970. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16th September, 1965 was quashed and the case was remanded with directions. Learned Single Judge of this Court allowed writ petition with the following findings: Admittedly Petitioner No. 5 had been living with Ram Ugrah Singh as his wife for a period of about 26 years. Admittedly Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were born of Smt. Sumitra Kunwar and the documents placed on the record which are old documents and had been prepared long before the dispute between the parties had arisen, show that Petitioners Nos. Admittedly Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were born of Smt. Sumitra Kunwar and the documents placed on the record which are old documents and had been prepared long before the dispute between the parties had arisen, show that Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are mentioned as the sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. Petitioners names were recorded in the basic year as successors of Ram Ugrah Singh. It was, therefore, for the Respondent No. 1 to prove that they were not the legitimate sons of Ram Ugrah Singh in order to deprive them from the property of the deceased. The impugned order of the Deputy Director, however, shows that he has placed the burden of proof on wrong shoulders by asking the Petitioners to prove their legitimacy. Section 50 of the Evidence Act provides that "when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant faet." Admittedly Ram Ugrah Singh deceased and Petitioner No. 5 had lived as husband and wife for a large number of years. It was, therefore, for the Respondent No. 1 to prove that Petitioner No. 5 was not a legally wedded wife of the deceased. From the aforesaid findings it appears that before this Court the fact that the mother of Petitioners and Ram Ugrah Singh lived as wife and husband for about 26 years was not disputed. The approach of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in putting the burden on the Petitioners was found erroneous in law, the ease was remanded for deciding afresh. It was for Udai Singh claimant to rebut the legal presumption that the Petitioners were legitimate sons of Ram Ugrah Singh as their mother Smt. Sumitra lived with him as wife for such a long number of years and in the society they were recognised as such. There was yet another legal presumption of legal and valid marriage between Ram Ugrah Singh and Smt. Sumitra as they lived together as wife and husband for such a long time. There was yet another legal presumption of legal and valid marriage between Ram Ugrah Singh and Smt. Sumitra as they lived together as wife and husband for such a long time. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the present Respondents Ghanshyam Singh and others in Special Appeal which too was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27th April, 1973. Both the judgments have become final. After remand the Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, vide order dated 31st March, 1975 has allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and has directed to record the names of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the khatas in dispute in place of Ram Ugrah Singh. This order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been challenged by filing this writ petition. 4. I have heard Shri Yatindra Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Shri G.N. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents at length and I have also perused the impugned order and other documents on record. Shri Yatindra Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that it was admitted case before this Court in earlier writ petition that Smt. Sumitra and Ram Ugrah Singh lived as wife and husband and this fact was not open to be doubted by Deputy Director of Consolidation. It has been' further submitted that the remand order which became final was binding on the Respondent No. 1. It contained a specific direction that the burden shall be on Udai Singh who claimed the land in dispute and challenged the rights of Petitioners but the Deputy Director of Consolidation has acted against the direction given by this Court in order dated 11th March, 1970. It has been further submitted that the legal presumption of legitimacy in favour of Petitioners and of legal and valid marriage on the ground of long cohabitation of Ram Ugrah Singh and Smt. Sumitra as husband and wife cannot be destroyed on account of failure of Petitioners but it can only be dislodged on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Respondents. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, illegally in whole of the judgment has discussed the evidence of the Petitioners for dislodging the presumption and the evidence adduced by Respondents which was disbelieved on many grounds by the two courts below, has only been referred. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, illegally in whole of the judgment has discussed the evidence of the Petitioners for dislodging the presumption and the evidence adduced by Respondents which was disbelieved on many grounds by the two courts below, has only been referred. The course adopted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be justified. It has been further submitted that overwhelming evidence has been ignored. The statement of Smt. Sumitra has been misread. The documentary evidence and other witnesses has been ignored on irrelevant and extraneous consideration and the findings recorded are perverse and arbitrary. It has been also submitted that Ram Lagan Singh previous husband of Smt. Sumitra and Ram Ugrah Singh were only collaterals and the difference between the two was about 4.5 degrees as clear from the pedigree mentioned by the parties. There was no prohibition of the marriage. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally passed his judgment taking this erroneous and misconceived view of law. 5. Lastly it has been submitted that reasons recorded by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation their judgments for not accepting the claim of the Respondents have not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was obligatory as he was reversing the judgments. 6. Sri Yatindra Singh has placed reliance on the cases Badri Prasad Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, AIR 1978 SC 1557 , Mohammad Jan Khan Vs. Mt. Sundar and Another, AIR 1934 All 884, Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1983) 2 SCC 442 , Andrahannedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyana-Patahendige Balahamy AIR 1927 PC 185 . 7. Sri G.N. Verma, on the other hand, has submitted that Smt. Sumitra filed a written statement in Original Suit No. 675 of 1953 and in that written statement she mentioned a pedigree showing herself to be wife of Ram Lagan Singh. In this pedigree she did not claim herself as wife of Ram Ugrah Singh. Petitioners cannot be permitted to dispute the pedigree mentioned by their mother in the aforesaid suit. It has been strongly contended by Sri G.N. Verma that howsoever long cohabitation between male and female may be offspring of such a union cannot be given the status of legitimacy unless the marriage is proved. According to Sri Verma in. the present case the Petitioners have failed to prove the marriage. It has been strongly contended by Sri G.N. Verma that howsoever long cohabitation between male and female may be offspring of such a union cannot be given the status of legitimacy unless the marriage is proved. According to Sri Verma in. the present case the Petitioners have failed to prove the marriage. They cannot be termed as legitimate sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. In the aforesaid written statement filed by Smt. Sumitra in Suit No. 675 of 1953 she did not claim herself as wife of Ram Ugrah Singh. It has been further submitted that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is concluded by findings of fact and cannot be inferred with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Sri Verma has also placed reliance in a cases Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1983) 2 SCC 442 . 8. I have thoroughly considered the arguments of both the learned Counsel and perused the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation It cannot be disputed that this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reappraise the evidence and cannot question the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers. However, if the findings recorded are based on misconception of law or they are perverse and arbitrary, this Court can interfere. There is no doubt about this legal position. The interference is limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, (1983) 2 SCC 442 , has held as under: In petition under Article 226 the High Court does not function as court of appeal over the finding of disciplinary authority but where the finding is utterly perverse, the court can always interfere with the same. Their lordships quoted with approval the view expressed by the same court earlier in judgment Union of India (UOI) Vs. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , that it is the conclusion which is perverse and therefore suffers from such obvious and patent error on the face of record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. Thus it is to be seen whether the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse and arbitrary as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and suffer from manifest error of law, on the. face of record. Thus it is to be seen whether the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse and arbitrary as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and suffer from manifest error of law, on the. face of record. In my opinion, the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation suffers from manifest illegality on many counts and which cannot be sustained in law. The illegalities committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be discussed in seriatim. 9. This Court while allowing earlier writ petition vide order dated 11th March, 1970 proceeded with admitted fact that Smt. Sumitra and Ram Ugrah Singh lived as wife and husband for over 26 years, it was not open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispute this fact. The remand order was binding on him. Enquiry to be made was confined to the question as to whether the objector Respondents could successfully dislodge the legal presumption of marriage between Smt Sumitra and Ram Ugrah Singh and that the Petitioners are their legitimate sons. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thus has committed manifest illegality in going beyond the remand order which has become final between the parties. It may also be pointed out that the admission noted by the learned Single Judge was not disputed before the Division Bench in Special Appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest any such thing that the Respondent disputed the admission recorded by the learned Single Judge or it was withdrawn or explained in any manner. 10. The second serious illegality committed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that he clearly acted in contravention of the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench. The view taken by this Court was that as Petitioners were recorded as tenure holders in basic year the burden was on Udai Singh to prove that they are not legitimate sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation although has been discussing the evidence adduced by the Petitioners. At the end of the order only he has mentioned the names of the witnesses examined by Udai Singh. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation although has been discussing the evidence adduced by the Petitioners. At the end of the order only he has mentioned the names of the witnesses examined by Udai Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has tried to justify the course adopted by him by saying that the names of the Petitioners were recorded on the basis of the order dated 27th October, 1986 passed by Collector against which an appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner which was stayed on account of the pendency of the consolidation. Thus the order was not final. It clearly shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted in contravention of the directions given by this Court. It is undisputed that the Petitioners were recorded in the basic bear by virtue of the order passed in mutation proceedings. Udai Singh had filed an objection disputing the entry in favour of Petitioners, and in view of this position, the burden was on Udai Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be allowed to act in contravention of the order passed by this Court on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning. The order suffers from manifest illegality. 11. The Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation disbelieved the statements of Pradhan Shesh Nath Singh, Darbari Pandey, Gajadhar and Udai Singh and recorded reasons for the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to consider the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation recorded cogent reasons for not accepting the oral evidence examined by Udai Singh, father of Respondents. It was admitted fact that the Pradhan Shesh Nath Singh was enimical to Petitioners. His evidence was not accepted by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground of enmity. The statement of Shesh Nath Singh was inconsistent to the documents maintained by Gaon Sabha. A certified copy of the family register was filed in which Smt. Sumitra has been shown as wife of Ram Ugrah Singh and the present Petitioners as their sons. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was under legal obligation to consider the findings and reasoning adopted by the authorities below before reversing their orders. 12. A certified copy of the family register was filed in which Smt. Sumitra has been shown as wife of Ram Ugrah Singh and the present Petitioners as their sons. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was under legal obligation to consider the findings and reasoning adopted by the authorities below before reversing their orders. 12. Petitioners filed number of documents showing that in school register they were recorded as sons of Ram Ugrah Singh, Ram Das Singh, Petitioner No. 1 filed a school leaving certificate from Junior High School, Maisipur, district Faizabad in which he was recorded as son of Ram Ugrah Singh resident of village Mahuwa Awaon. tahsil Mohamadabad, district Azamgarh. The other school leaving certificate has been issued from Gajadeen Inter College. In this document also Petitioner No. 1 Ram Das Singh has been shown as son of Ram Ugrah Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, has, however, adopted a stranf e reasoning for ignoring this document that column is meant for mentioning name of father and guardian both, hence it cannot be said that name of Ram Ugrah Singh is mentioned as father of Petitioner No. 1. Column 2 of the aforesaid certificate is meant for name of father/guardian and the occupation and address. Just below there is a big column where father and guardian have been separately mentioned. Name of Ram Ugrah Singh is recorded against the word father and not against SANRAKSHAK. Similarly in the School leaving certificate issued from Narendra Deo Inter College, Jalalpur, Faizabad also Ram Ugrah Singh has been mentioned against the word father and not guardian. The finding of the 'Depty Director of Consolidation ignoring these documents which fully established the parentage of Petitioners and that the Petitioner No. 1 Ram Das Singh studied in continuation in schools and colleges at different grades, is clearly arbitrary and perverse. The aforesaid documents have been filed as Annexures 7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition. Annexure-10 to the writ petition is school leaving certificate in respect of Petitioner Lalta Singh. He has also been shown as son of Ram Ugrah Singh in this certificate. From all these documents it is fully established that the Petitioners are sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. 13. In Badri Prasad Vs. Dy. Annexure-10 to the writ petition is school leaving certificate in respect of Petitioner Lalta Singh. He has also been shown as son of Ram Ugrah Singh in this certificate. From all these documents it is fully established that the Petitioners are sons of Ram Ugrah Singh. 13. In Badri Prasad Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 527 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. In the background of this legal position if the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is examined there is no doubt that he has committed a manifest illegality. The strong legal presumption in favour of wedlock and legitimacy cannot be diluted, merely because the Petitioners have not been able to prove the marriage of their father and mother. On record there is an agreement dated 16th August, 1940, which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. In this document it has been recorded that Smt. Sumitra is residing with Ram Ugrah Singh since long back in village Awaon and she has no right in the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that by this agreement the dispute between the parties to it, regarding the property of Ram Lagan. Singh, previous husband of Smt. Sumitra, was settled and under this document Smt. Sumitra was given certain plots. This agreement was relied on in the judgment dated 30th April, 1955 given in Suit No. 675 of 1953. The name of Smt. Sumitra (Sumirta) was recorded in Khewat of 1335-F. Which is equivalent to year 1927. It shows that Ram Lagan Singh died prior to that and Smt. Sumitra after wedding started living with Ram Ugrah Singh. Thus by 1940 they had already lived for about more than ten years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ignored the document of 1940 merely saying that it has not been mentioned in the document that they were living as wife and husband. Thus by 1940 they had already lived for about more than ten years. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has ignored the document of 1940 merely saying that it has not been mentioned in the document that they were living as wife and husband. It cannot be disputed that Smt. Sumitra was illiterate lady and in our male dominated society her true status was deliberately not described to help some body who must have been instrumental in bringing the settlement of the dispute regarding the property of Ram Lagan Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in ignoring this document on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning. This document fully established that by the time Sri Ram Ugrah Singh died on 14th January, 1953 both had already lived as wife and husband for about 26 years. Thus strong legal presumption in favour of Petitioners cannot be dislodged, merely because the evidence adduced by Petitioners in view of Deputy Director of Consolidation was unconvincing. In case of Paras Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow 1972 RD 27. Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J. (as his Lordship then was) held: "If a legal presumption in favour of a party could be drawn, the mere fact that the evidence produced by that party was not found to be quite convincing, cannot deprive the party of that legal presumption in its favour. "With regard to the necessary conditions in favour of raising the presumption." The Deputy Director of Consolidation thus committed a manifest illegality in depriving the Petitioners of the aforesaid legal presumption on the basis of the weaknesses noticed in their oral and documentary evidence. 14. There is yet another important aspect of the case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken the view that Ram Lagan Singh, the previous husband of Smt. Sumitra and Ram Ugrah Singh were related as Uncle and nephew and thus Smt. Sumitra came under the prohibited degree being aunt and he could not legally remarry with Ram Ugrah Singh. Taking this view the Deputy Director of Consolidation has even doubted long cohabitation which was established from the overwhelming evidence on record. The pedigree has been mentioned in the plaint of Suit No. 675 of 1953. The pedigree has also been mentioned in the written statement filed, in the above suit. There are slight variances in the pedigree mentioned by the parties. The pedigree has been mentioned in the plaint of Suit No. 675 of 1953. The pedigree has also been mentioned in the written statement filed, in the above suit. There are slight variances in the pedigree mentioned by the parties. However in all the pedigree it can be seen that the difference between Ram Lagan Singh and Ram Ugrah Singh was of 4, 5 degrees and they could not come within the prohibited degree. In any view of the matter Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 clearly legalised the marriage of Hindu Widows. Section 1 of the aforesaid Act reads as under: Marriage of Hindu Widows Legalised. 1. No marriage contracted between Hindus shall be invalid, and the issue of no such marriage shall be illegitimate, by reason of the woman having been previously married or betrothed to another person who was dead at the time of such marriage, any custom and any interpretation of Hindu Law to the contrary notwithstanding. In view of the aforesaid provisions contained in Section 1 of the Act of 1956 the marriage cannot be said to be invalid on the ground that Smt. Sumitra came under prohibited degree. 15. Smt. Sumitra in her statement stated that at the time of her marriage with Ram Ugrah Singh, her father and brothers were present. Bahadur Singh who is closely related to the parties proved marriage. He claimed himself to be the witness. The other witnesses examined by the Petitioners have been disbelieved on the ground of age. The Deputy Director of Consolidation ignored the provisions of Section 50 of the Evidence Act that for forming the opinion as to the relationship of one person to another. The opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who was a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the subject, is relevant fact. The persons who were examined claimed special means as they were living in the same village. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while forming the opinion could not reject the statement of witnesses merely because they could not witness the marriage ceremony. In such circumstances even hear-say evidence is admissible. The persons who were examined claimed special means as they were living in the same village. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while forming the opinion could not reject the statement of witnesses merely because they could not witness the marriage ceremony. In such circumstances even hear-say evidence is admissible. The court in case of Bamraj v. Gaya, 1969 AWR 579, has taken the view that the proof required for marriage or relationship of husband and wife stands on a different footing from the ordinary standard of proof in respect of other facts. In fact the rule of exclusion of hear say evidence has been in a way relaxed in cases where marriage or relationship of one person to another has to be proved. It is not essential that the factum of marriage must be established by eye witnesses or proof of the performance of ceremonies. Even the testimony of a single witness in proof of marriage is sufficient to prove the factum of marriage. Continuous cohabitation of a man and woman and husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage." In view of the aforesaid legal position the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed a serious illegality in ignoring the oral evidence adduced by Petitioners. 16. The Deputy Director of Consolidation after referring the documents of Suit No. 675 of 1953 has observed that she never claimed herself to be the wife of Ram Ugrah Singh during his life-time. Much has been said about the pedigree mentioned by Smt. Sumitra in her written statement wherein she mentioned herself as wife of Ram Lagan Singh, previous husband who was dead on that date. The Deputy Director of Consolidation however failed to consider that Ram Ugrah Singh had already died on 14th January, 1953 and the Suit No. 575 of 1953 was filed on 1st June, 1953. In her written statement Smt Sumitra though mentioned herself in the pedigree as wife of Ram Lagan Singh but in para 1 of the written statement she specifically stated that the pedigree mentioned in the suit is incorrect and she is giving the correct pedigree and immediately thereafter in para 2 of the written statement she has claimed that she is not LAWARIS but has four sons. In her statement on oath in the same suit she clearly mentioned that she married Ram Ugrah Singh. In her statement on oath in the same suit she clearly mentioned that she married Ram Ugrah Singh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was not justified in drawing unwarranted inference from the written statement filed by Smt. Sumitra in the aforesaid suit of 1953. He should have taken into consideration her written statement as a whole along with her statement on oath. 17. From the materials on record the marriage between Ram Ugrah Singh and Smt. Sumitra is fully established and it is also established that the Petitioners are the legitimate sons of Sri Ram Ugrah Singh and they were rightly recorded. The Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation correctly rejected the objection filed by Udai Singh. 18. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition allowed. The impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation suffers from manifest illegality and cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The dispute between the parties is pending for the last more than 30 years. Since I have examined the record of the case at length, I do not feel that any useful purpose will be served in remanding the case again to the revisional authority. In my opinion, it shall sub-serve the ends of justice to close the dispute at this stage. On the basis of the material on record the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation was fully justified and hence it shall stand restored. There will be no order as to costs.