JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing Annexures-6 and 7 dated 5.5.1981 and 25.6.1984, passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. Muzaffarpur and the Joint Director, Consolidation Muzaffarpur respectively. 2. There are four family members from the branch of Baidyanath Choudhary namely Radhika Choudhary, Dund Bahadur Choudhary, Chaturbhuj Choudhary and Sachchida Nand Choudhary. Most Champa Devi (who was petitioner no. 1) is the wife of Dund Bahadur Choudhary and petitioner no. 2 is the son of Dund Bahadur Choudhary, whereas the respondents are the heirs of Chaturbhuj Choudhary. 3. A Partition Suit numbered as 5 of 1969 was instituted. Eventually by a compromise decree, compromise partition decree was prepared, in which four schedules of lands were prepared in favour of Radhika Choudhary and his three sons. Radhika Choudhary is said to have sold 1.21 decimals of land appertaining to Plot No. 1096 (old), Khata No. 78 corresponding to Plot No. 1960, Khata No. 42 (new). The dispute revolves around the fact that branch of Radhika Choudhary claims that in the compromise, 1.21 decimals of land of the aforesaid plots were allotted to him, whereas the claim of the petitioner is that 21 decimals of land was allotted to Radhika Choudhary and 1 decimal of land was allotted to Champa Devi (wife of Dund Bahadur Choudhary). Radhika Choudhary sold 1.21 decimals of land on 28.11.1972 to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner filed an objection before the Consolidation Officer which has led to the passing of the present orders. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the consolidation authorities could not have entered into the question as to whether the compromise decree was correct or not or held that there was an interpolation in the compromise decree. The specific stand of the petitioner with respect to the compromise decree is that the respondents i.e. Radhika Choudhary or her successor in interest had filed Miscellaneous Case No. 3 of 1976 challenging the correctness of the compromise decree which was eventually dismissed for non appearance of the parties and as such according to the petitioner the respondents cannot challenge the correctness or otherwise of the compromise decree. 5. Considering the issues that were raised in this writ application, this Court called for the original records of Title Suit No. 5 of 1969. 6. The records are before me. 5. Considering the issues that were raised in this writ application, this Court called for the original records of Title Suit No. 5 of 1969. 6. The records are before me. On perusal of the records and the compromise decree, this Court finds that Schedule I lands were allotted to Sachchida Nand Choudhary which appertains to different khatas and khesras, totaling to 3.381/2 decimals. Schedule II lands measuring 3.291/2 decimals were allotted to Radhika Choudhary. Schedule III were allotted to Dund Bahadur Choudhary the total lands measure 3.22 decimals and Schedule IV lands were allotted to Chaturbhuj Choudhary which measure 3.4a decimals of land. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the consolidation authority cannot examine the decree and hold that there is an interpolation in the compromise decree. This argument would perhaps be acceptable to this Court, and the Court may have quashed the order on this ground, however, since the records are before me, it is not possible to ignore or disregard the facts that have emerged on perusal of the compromise decree. It is well settled that the Courts are experts of experts as far as examination of documents etc. are concerned. On perusal of the records the following glaring facts: (a) There are several corrections made in the compromise decree which have been signed by the officer who has made the corrections. (b) There is no dispute with respect to Schedule I land. The total land allotted has been given at the end of Schedule I which has been corrected and duly signed by the officer both in black and blue ink. (c) Schedule II is the disputed Schedule of Radhika Choudhary. Against Plot No. 1096(disputed plot), this Court finds that it is clear that 1 (one) has been converted into 0 (zero). The total land at the end has also been corrected but not signed by the officer concerned. Both these facts indicate that there is interpolation in Schedule II and 1.21 has been reduced to 21. (d) Schedule III is the disputed Schedule of Dund Bahadur Choudhary. On perusal of the lands allotted in this Schedule, this Court finds that against Plot No. 1096, that there is over writing against 1 acre and 0 decimal which indicates that it has been interpolated. The said over writing has not been signed by the officer concerned. (d) Schedule III is the disputed Schedule of Dund Bahadur Choudhary. On perusal of the lands allotted in this Schedule, this Court finds that against Plot No. 1096, that there is over writing against 1 acre and 0 decimal which indicates that it has been interpolated. The said over writing has not been signed by the officer concerned. At the end of Schedule III which shows the total lands allotted to Dund Bahadur Choudhary, this Court finds that where there is a typing error, the officer concerned has signed and 4 decimals has been added which in fact appears to be from a different typewriter; if compared to the number 4 typed at several places in the said Schedule. This clearly shows that there is interpolation in Schedule III. (e) Schedule IV of Chaturbhuj Choudhary shows that the officer has signed wherever there has been correction made in the plot number etc. There is no mistake at the end of the Schedule IV where the total lands are mentioned. 8. All the aforesaid points leave no doubt in the Courts mind regarding the fact that the petitioners predecessors have interpolated the original compromise decree in order to show that they had been allotted 1 decimal of land whereas in fact they were not given any share in plot no. 1096, Khata No. 78. 9. In the result, I cannot pass any order in favour of the petitioner. This writ application is, thus, dismissed.