JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are the sons of late Shiv Bux, who was defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 4 Devisingh since deceased and now represented by his legal representa tives and respondent No. 5 Ganpatsingh, for partition of land in' question situated at Ghatiyawali Tehsil Chittorgarh. In the suit, the plaintiffs-respondents have averred that Shiv Bux had three sons viz., Bhoorsingh, Daulatram and Sajjansingh. Bhoorsingh was his eldest son. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the sons of Bhoorsingh and the property in question to be ancestral. On this premise, while claiming ⅓rd share in the property, as would have been share of their father Bhoorsingh in is life time on partition of the property. It was alleged that Bhoorsingh had died during the period when plaintiffs were minors and taking advantage of their minority, after the death of Shivbux, the land in question has been mutated in the name of defendants-petitioners only. It was further alleged that when they demanded their share in the property on 25-1-1993 from the defendants-petitioners, they refused and therefore, the present suit was filed on 26-3-1973 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Chittorgarh. 2. The defendants in their written statement denied the claim of the plaintiffs inter alia on the ground that Bhoorsingh had gone in adoption to another family and thus, he had no share in the property of Shivbux. It was also claimed that by the time Bhoorsingh died, he was unmarried and, therefore, he could not have any sons who could claim share in the property. Other defences were also taken which are not necessary to be referred to in the present controversy. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five Issues. Issue No. 4 was whether the plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh? While deciding this issue, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it has come on record during the course of evidence that name of the mother of plaintiffs was Mst. Gunsagar, who was married to one Dashrath. Upto this stage, there was no dispute. While the case of the plaintiffs preceded on the premise that when said Mst. Gunsagar was deserted by her husband, she contracted a Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh and out of that wedlock, the plaintiffs were begotten. This aspect of the evidence was led for showing that after Mst. Upto this stage, there was no dispute. While the case of the plaintiffs preceded on the premise that when said Mst. Gunsagar was deserted by her husband, she contracted a Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh and out of that wedlock, the plaintiffs were begotten. This aspect of the evidence was led for showing that after Mst. Gunsagar was deserted by Dashrath, she resided for a considerable period with Bhoorsingh. However, the trial Court did not record any positive finding about the marriage of Mst. Gunsagar with Bhoorsingh. 4. While deciding this Issue No. 4, the learned trial Court held that where a man and woman lived together for a long time, it amounts to marriage and it is not necessary that marriage should be performed according to Hindu rites and the children begotten out of such alliance are to be considered as their legal heirs. It therefore, held that since Mst. Gunsagar resided with Bhoorsingh without any objection from her husband Dashrath, Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar may be considered to be husband and wife and on that premise, it was presumed that the plaintiffs were born out of the said wedlock of Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar and were legitimate children of Bhoorsingh and, therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to claim partition in the property of Shivbux as coparcener. In this view of the matter, a preliminary decree declaring the plaintiffs' ⅓rd share in the property in question was passed on 9-12-1977. 5. On appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority found that from the evidence produced before it particularly of Daulatsingh, the real brother of Bhoorsingh it is clear that Bhoorsingh died in Samvat year 2006 corresponding to 1949 and their father Shiv Bux died in Samvat 2013 corresponding to 1956 and this evidence remained unrebutted. It further found that in the plaint filed in March 1973, plaintiffs Devisingh and Ganpatsingh disclosed their age to be 20 and 18 years respectively and, therfore, it is highly improbable that the plaintiffs were born out of the wedlock of Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar as Bhoorsingh had already expired in the year 1949 and he was not alive in the year 1952-53. The Revenue Appellate Authority further held that regarding the factum of Nata marriage between Mst. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh, the best witness was Mst. Gunsagar as Bhoorsingh had already expired in the year 1949 and he was not alive in the year 1952-53. The Revenue Appellate Authority further held that regarding the factum of Nata marriage between Mst. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh, the best witness was Mst. Gunsagar, who was alive at the time of recording the statements of the plaintiffs' witnesses but she has not come to the witness box. It further held that none of the witnesses claimed their knowledge about the Nata marriage between Bhoorsingh and Gunsagar. In this view of the matter, the Revenue Appellate Authority held that in absence of any positive evidence about the marriage contracted between Mst. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh because on the basis of the admitted age of the plaintiffs, on the date of death of Bhoorsingh, plaintiffs could not have born and moreover, the testimony of Daulatsingh that on the date when Bhoorsingh died, he was unmarried also remained unrebutted. Therefore, the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the legitimate sons of Bhoorsingh so as to claim right to partition of the ancestral proeprty held by Shivbux, who undisputedly died after the death of Bhoorsingh. 6. On the second appeal filed by the respondents, the Board of Revenu vide its judgment and decree dated 25-8-1986 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment Annexure/2 dated 19-5-1979 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and maintained the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1999 passed by the Assistant Collector, Chittorgarh. Hence, his writ petition by the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the aforesaid two facts viz., about the death of Bhoorsingh and the admitted age of the plaintiffs at the time of filing the plaint and thereafter, their ages stated by the witnesses and the fact that none of the Courts below have found any positive evidence of any Nata marriage between Mst. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh but only drew inference of the marriage by the fact regarding cohabitation of Mst. Gunsagar with Bhoorsingh for a long period. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh but only drew inference of the marriage by the fact regarding cohabitation of Mst. Gunsagar with Bhoorsingh for a long period. It was also pointed out that while hearing the second appeal, the Board of Revenue could not have interfered with the findings of fact recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority in the manner it has been done by reappreciating the evidence and by ignoring the material circumstances relied on by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 8. ON the other hand, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the questions whether the plaintiffs-respondents were the sons of Bhoorsingh and Whether Mst. Gunsagar was lawfully wedded wife of Bhoorsingh are the questions of fact and the Board of Revenue being the final Court of finding of fact having arrived at in favour of the plaintiffs, this Court would not like to interfere with the findings of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Having considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that while no exception can be taken to the principle that ordinarily this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution would not like to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal but however, it is equally well settled that if the findings of fact has been arrived at by the subordinate Court or Tribunal by ignoring relevant facts or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or on consideration of partly relevant or partly irrelevant material or the finding appears to be perverse or unreasonable, this Court would not be precluded from ignoring those findings and reaching its own conclusions. In the present case, the petitioners have made out such a case. The suit has been filed on 26-3-1973. The plaint of the suit clearly states the age of both the plaintiffs as 20 and 18 years respectively. The plaint also stated that the father of the plaintiffs died about 20 years ago. These assertions made by the plaintiffs make out the case of plaintiff Ganpatsingh to be son of Bhoorsingh highly improbable and unbelievable as in the plaint itself he has stated his age to be 18 years and has also stated that his father expired 20 years ago. These assertions made by the plaintiffs make out the case of plaintiff Ganpatsingh to be son of Bhoorsingh highly improbable and unbelievable as in the plaint itself he has stated his age to be 18 years and has also stated that his father expired 20 years ago. 10. The defendants-petitioners have stated in their written statement that apart from that, Bhoorsingh had gone in adoption to another family and, therefore, he had no right to property in the family of his original birth. Moreover, he died in the state of unmarried person. Undisputedly the mother of plaintiffs was married with Dashrath Singh according to Hindu rites and was not married to Bhoorsingh by any customary rites. In these circumstances, the burden was on the plaintiffs to prove that inspite of the fact that Mst. Gunsagar was married with Dashrathsingh but that she has separated herself from Darshansingh and contracted Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh. Mere suggestion of cohabitation for a long time with a person outside wedlock during the continuance of wedlock of Dashrathsingh would not raise any presumption of existence of marriage between Bhoorsingh and Gunsagar. In this scenario, it became very important to enquire what exact relationship existed between Mst. Gunsagar and Bhoorsingh and to prove this factum, Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar were the best evidence. Admittedly Bhoorsingh had died prior to filing of this suit but Mst. Gunsagar was alive but no attempt was made to produce her in the witness box to prove this factum that the plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar contracted Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh after separating herself with Darshansingh. Even no suggestion was made to bring Mst. Gunsagar in the witness box. In these circumstances, a legitimate inference was drawn by the Revenu Appellate Authority that in absence of best evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh and Mst. Gunsagar contracted Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh after separating herself with, Dashrathsingh, it cannot be held that plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Board of Revenue has erred in holding that plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh. Gunsagar contracted Nata marriage with Bhoorsingh after separating herself with, Dashrathsingh, it cannot be held that plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Board of Revenue has erred in holding that plaintiffs are the sons of Bhoorsingh. The above evidence alone was sufficient to non-suit the plaintiffs and by not considering this part of the evidence and the circum stances emerging from the facts of the case, the Board of Revenue has erred in drawing inference against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs, and upset the finding of facts arrived at by the lower Court while hearing second appeal. It was not ordinarily open to the Board to ignore such finding of facts. 11. Another aspect which has been missed by the Board of Revenue which is apparent from the order is that alliance of a man and woman can result in recognition of the parentage of their children but it does not confer any right to a child born out of such an alliance, to the inheritance of property other than of their putative parents. Such an alliance cannot be considered as legitimate alliance of marriage and the children born out of such an alliance cannot claim themselves as coparcner in the property of a Hindu Undivided family so as to claim right to partition in the ancestral property. Admittedly Bhoorsingh died in the year 1949. Mulla in his treatise 'Hindu Law' fifteenth Edition at page 119 has said that the illegitimate sons of Brahaman, Kashatriya, or Vaisya are entitled to maintenance and not to any share of the inheritance. It has been further said that the illegitimate son of a Sudra, however, is entitled to a share of the inheritance provided (1) he is the son of a dasi, that is a Hindu (ii) concubine in the continuous and exclusive keeping of his father at the time of his birth and (2) he is not the fruit of an adulterous or incestuous intercourse. Thus, it is clear that the principle referred to by the learned trial Court about the inheritance of illegitimate son applies to Sudra and not Brahmins. Kshatriya and Vaisya. 12. Thus, it is clear that the principle referred to by the learned trial Court about the inheritance of illegitimate son applies to Sudra and not Brahmins. Kshatriya and Vaisya. 12. As a result of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the order dated 25-8-1986 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the judgment dated 9-12-1977 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority is restored by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******