ORDER : 1. This appeal arises from the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 1977/79 dated November 5, 1985. By the impugned order the High Court quashed the order of the Deputy Director, 2. Consolidation and upheld the claim of the respondents. 2. To appreciate the controversy in this case, it would be necessary to refer to facts briefly. One Bhagwan Din had four sons. Two of the sons Ram Nawal and Rudra Pratap died issueless. Of the remaining sons, Ram Himanchal died leaving behind him his widow Mst. Kalpa and Ram Pratap died leaving behind him the appellants. 3. The first respondent, Mst. Suraj Mukhi, was the daughter of Mst. Kalpa, since deceased, whose legal representatives are respondents 2 to 8. The dispute relates to agricultural lands comprising Khatas Nos. 7, 9 and 140 in village Hussionpur, Balpur Paryona Pargana, Tehsil Akbar, District Faizabad. 4. The dispute has its origin in the order of the Consolidation Officer who rejected the claim of respondent no. 1 made on the death of Kalpa for mutation of her name as the heir of Kalpa. That claim was contested by the appellants, inter-alia, on the ground that they succeeded to her property. She unsuccessfully persued the matter in appeal before the Settlement Officer and in revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Against the order dismissing her revision on 9.4.1979, she filed the aforementioned writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. 5. The High Court quashed the said order of the Deputy Director, Consolidation by order dated November 5, 1985 which is assailed, by the appellants, by special leave, in this appeal. 6. Mr. R.B. Mehrotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that having regard to the provisions of Section 171 read with Section 172(2)(a)(i) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 respondent no. 1 is not the heir of Mst. Kalpa. A perusal of Section 171 discloses that Kalpa's daughter, whether married or unmarried, is entitled to succeed to her. 7. Therefore, this contention of the learned senior counsel fails. 8. The learned counsel next contends that there has been no finding that Suraj Mukhi (respondent no. 1) is the daughter of Kalpa, therefore, the case may be remanded to the Settlement Officer for further inquiry on that point. 9. 7. Therefore, this contention of the learned senior counsel fails. 8. The learned counsel next contends that there has been no finding that Suraj Mukhi (respondent no. 1) is the daughter of Kalpa, therefore, the case may be remanded to the Settlement Officer for further inquiry on that point. 9. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the simple reason that this point was not in issue before the High Court. 10. Finally it is argued that Khata No. 140 was specifically given up before the Deputy Director, Consolidation and therefore, the High Court ought not to have granted relief in respect of Khata No. 140. A perusal of the order under challenge shows that even this point was not urged before the High Court, we are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this point. 11. For the above mentioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. Inasmuch as the respondents are not represented, we make no order as to costs.