JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 26th August, 2008 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue by which second appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act claiming their share in the property standing in the name of Panchu on the ground that the said property was acquired by Late Sukhlal and was a joint family property and being great grand son of Sukhlal entitled for the share. In support of their claim, they produced Suryabali son of Gulab Singh who claims to be Zamindar of the village. In his statement, he stated that the said land was given on lease to late Sukhlal. Second witness produced by the petitioners was Lalchand. 3. The claim of the respondents was that late Sukhlal had only two sons, namely, Kalu and Adhin. Gudar and Boli were not the sons of late Sukhlal but sons of Mahipal of village Khodaipur, Pargana Kantit, Tappa Upraudh, District Mirzapur. Kalu died without issue. Panchu was the son of Adhin. The property in dispute was standing in the name of Adhin and after the death, the name of Panchu was recorded being the son. He also submitted that the said property was self acquired property of Adhin and was not the allotted land of Sukhlal and thus, Girdhari had no right over the land in dispute. 4. Pargana Adhikari vide order dated 11.1.1993 has held that the property in dispute belongs to the joint family. He further held that the petitioners had 1/4th share in the property in dispute. Being aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ganga and Terhai sons of late Panchu filed appeal No. 27 of 1993 before the Commissioner. The appeal was heard by the Additional Commissioner and decided by order dated 28th February, 1995. The appeal was allowed and the order dated 11th January, 1993 has been set aside. The appellate authority held that in the revenue record in 1603 Fasli the name of Kalu son of Sukhlal was recorded. In 1346 Fasli the name of Panchu son of Adhin was recorded. In 1359 Fasli also the name of Panchu son of Adhin was recorded. The appellate authority held that in the revenue record in 1603 Fasli the name of Kalu son of Sukhlal was recorded. In 1346 Fasli the name of Panchu son of Adhin was recorded. In 1359 Fasli also the name of Panchu son of Adhin was recorded. In 1333 Fasli, the name of Adhin was recorded, in 1359 to 1391 Fasli in Khata No. 92, 39 Kita 11 Bighas, 2 Biswas exclusive name of Panchu son of Adhin was recorded. In the record, the name of late Sukhlal is nowhere recorded. He held that Suryabali Singh in his statement stated that the land was given to late Sukhlal on lease, while no document has been adduced in this regard. The statement of other persons have also not been relied upon as they were born after the death of Sukhlal and made the statement only on the basis of hearsay. On the basis of the material on record, he held that the land was not the joint family property and was never the property of Sukhlal and, therefore, the petitioners had no right over the land in dispute. Being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners filed second appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Member, Board of Revenue held that in the statement Suryabali Singh stated that the land was given on lease to late Sukhlal, while no document has been adduced in this regard. He held that the statement of other persons were also unreliable because they were born after the death of late Sukhlal and their statement were hearsay. He further held that no evidence has been adduced that the property in dispute was acquired by late Sukhlal. In this view of the matter, he held that the petitioners had no right over the land in dispute. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned order and other documents annexed with the writ petition. I do not find any error in the order of the Board of Revenue. The petitioners are claiming the following pedigree of their family. Sukhlal Kalu Adhin Gudar Boli (Issuless) Panchu (Issuless) Sehtu Magar Ganga Terhai Gopal Girdhari Mandhari Sandhari 6. It is settled principle of law that property belongs to the person in whose name it stands unless contrary is proved. The petitioners are claiming the following pedigree of their family. Sukhlal Kalu Adhin Gudar Boli (Issuless) Panchu (Issuless) Sehtu Magar Ganga Terhai Gopal Girdhari Mandhari Sandhari 6. It is settled principle of law that property belongs to the person in whose name it stands unless contrary is proved. Admittedly the property in dispute stands in the revenue record in the name of Panchu. Therefore, presumption is that it belongs to him. A very heavy burden lies upon the petitioners to prove that it relates to the joint family. Respondents have submitted that Sukhlal has only two sons, namely, Kalu and Adhin. Gudar and Boli were not the sons of late Sukhlal but the sons of one Mahipal and secondly, the petitioners have to prove that the property in dispute was acquired by Late Sukhlal and ever recorded in the revenue record in his name.To prove the case, the petitioners have to prove firstly, that they were the great grand sons of Sukhlal and it had been acquired by their ancestral. No evidence has been adduced that the property in dispute was ever recorded in the revenue record in the name of late Sukhlal. Sri Suryabali who is claiming to be the Zamindar of the village stated that the property in dispute was allotted to late Sukhlal, but no evidence in this regard has been adduced. Statements of other witnesses, namely, Lal Chand etc. has been rightly not been relied upon as they were based on hearsay. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) through L.Rs. and another v. Mst. Bibi Hazra and others, AIR 1974 SC 171 held as follows : “It is well settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of Benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof. Though the question, whether a particular sale is Benami or not, is largely one of fact, and for determining this question, no absolute formulae or acid test, uniformally applicable in all situations, can be laid down, yet in weighing the probabilities and for gathering the relevant indicia, the Courts are usually guided by these circumstances: (1) the source from which the purchase money came; (2) the nature and possession of the property, after the purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the title-deeds after the sale; and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale. The above indicia are not exhaustive and their efficacy varies according to the facts of each case. Nevertheless No. 1 viz. The source whence the purchase money came, is by far the most important test for determining whether the sale standing in the name of one person, is in reality for the benefit of another”. 8. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ————