JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this special appeal is to the order dated April 13, 1999 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant holding that the Board of Revenue rightly interfered with the order of Revenue Appellate Authority since it was against the material on record. 2. Contextual facts depict that plaintiff-respondent No.4 (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration and division of holding against the defendant-appellant (for short the defendant), in the Court of Asstt. Collector, Kota with the averments that the land bearing Khasra Nos. 127, 131, 139, 152 and 205, measuring 49 Bighas and 12 Biswas situated in village Simliya was in the Khatedari of his grand-father Narayan, who had a son Dhulia. Dhulia died during the life time of Narain, leaving behind his widow Mst. Ramo and two sons Sheonath (defendant) and Lodkilal (plaintiff) and the land got mutated in favour of minor Sheonath (defendant) through mother Mst. Ramo, whereas the plaintiff Was also alive and according to Hindu Customs, it ought to have been recorded in the name of elder brother. The land was cultivated jointly by plaintiff, defendant and their mother Mst. Ramo. Four years prior to the institution of the suit the plaintiff and defendant got separated, but the ancestral land was not divided hence the suit for declaration and partition was filed. 3. The defendant in the written statement denied in general the facts pleaded in the plaint. As many as five issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and parties too adduced evidence. The suit got decreed on May 20, 1985 and it was held that Sheonath was the son of Dhulia and thus entitled to one half share from the land in dispute. Defendant preferred appeal against the said decree. The Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the finding of Asstt. Collector and accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated September 27, 1988. 4. The finding of Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the plaintiff in the second appeal before the Board of Revenue. Learned Board of Revenue vide judgment dated July 22, 1994 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 5. Assailing the order of Board of Revenue, the defendant preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed on April 13, 1999. Learned Board of Revenue vide judgment dated July 22, 1994 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. 5. Assailing the order of Board of Revenue, the defendant preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was dismissed on April 13, 1999. Though review petition was filed, but it was also dismissed on July 29, 1999. 6. It is canvassed on behalf of the appellant that the evidence adduced at the trial was not properly considered by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel took us through the documentary and oral evidence and made attempt to establish was not the son of Dhulia. We however, find no substance in the submission. 7. Having scanned the pleadings of the parties we notice that in para 3 of the plaint, it was averred as under:- HINDI MATTER 359179 A. In reply to the said para, the defendant stated thus:- HINDI MATTER 359179 B. Since the averments of the plaintiff were not specifically denied, it shall be taken to be admitted in view of order 8 Rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. Order 8 Rules 3 and 5 read as under:- "Rule 3 : Denial to be specific:-It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages. Rule 5 : Specific denial (1):- Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability : Provided that the Court may in his discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (Emphasis supplied)" 8. We are in complete agreement with the following observations of the learned Board of Revenue: "According to plaintiff's statement he was born after 4-5 months of the death of khatedar Dhulia. The Panchayat election list of 1974 at serial No. 29 Lodkia is shown as son of Dhulia. Mohan Lal P.W. 2 has also admitted this fact that Dhulia had two sons namely Sheo Lal and Lodkia. PW-3 Shri Ram son of Lalu also admitted this fact. The Panchayat election list of 1974 at serial No. 29 Lodkia is shown as son of Dhulia. Mohan Lal P.W. 2 has also admitted this fact that Dhulia had two sons namely Sheo Lal and Lodkia. PW-3 Shri Ram son of Lalu also admitted this fact. D.W. 2 Moti Lal who is the witness of defendant has deposed that he had no knowledge whether Mst. Ramo went in Nata to Bhura or not. This evidence was sufficient to prove that Lodki-plaintiff is the son of deceased Dhulia. The mutation attested in favour of defendant Sheonath does not deprive the plaintiff of his right, generally it was the practice among Hindus that the lands were recorded in favour of the eldest brother or member of the family, but that cannot deprive the youngsters from their right. The learned trial court has discussed this at length in his finding given on issue Nos. 1 and 2 jointly, whereas the learned R.A.A. has not considered the evidence and relied only on the mutation entry." 9. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition under the supervisory jurisdiction. In Sadhna Lod Vs. National Insurance Co. (2003) 3 S.C.C. 524 , their lordships of the Supreme Court indicated as under: (para 7) "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceed within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." 10. In the result, the special appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******