JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Islam Ahmad learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The dispute relates to succession and inheritance over certain plots relating to the holding of late Sita Ram who died on 27.7.2000. The petitioner Raja Ram claims succession as he happens to be the brother of late Sita Ram whereas the contesting respondent Nos. 5 and 6 claim themselves to be the descendants of late Sita Ram. 3. The entire effort on the part of the petitioner was to prove that the respondent Nos. 4,5 and 6 are not the legal heirs of late Sita Ram for which reliance was being placed on Ration Card entries, Family Register extract and other documents to contend that the parentage and the pedigree as alleged by the respondents are not corroborated, and once the parentage was not proved, the respondents cannot claim succession to the property. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the statements of Banwari, Sangam Lal and Ram Kumar. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the findings recorded by the authorities below are perverse and the statements on behalf of the witnesses of the petitioner could not have been disbelieved and that the statement of the witnesses of the contesting respondents could not be believed as claimed by them. He therefore submits that the impugned orders are erroneous and deserve to be set aside. 6. Sri Manzoorul Islam learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue relating to belief or disbelief of evidence is beyond the realm of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this situation it cannot be said that the findings are perverse. He submits that the evidence which has now been pointed out before this Court particularly the Ration Card or Family Register were never corroborated before the authorities with any other evidence as such they have no evidentiary value. In the circumstances the evidence relied upon by the petitioner and as adduced before the authorities has been rightly discarded. He therefore contends that there is neither any perversity nor is there any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. In the circumstances the evidence relied upon by the petitioner and as adduced before the authorities has been rightly discarded. He therefore contends that there is neither any perversity nor is there any infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after having perused the record it is evident that the Consolidation Officer has dealt with the evidence that was led including that which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as a Ration Card is concerned, the same is at best an evidence relating to distribution of essential commodities to a person mentioned therein who is entitled to receive such benefits. The evidence led did not corroborate the entries in the ration card and therefore the same is not a conclusive evidence. The entries in an electoral roll only establish the competence and capacity of a person named therein entitled to exercise his right of franchise. It is not proof of any parentage or of date of birth and has to be corroborated by additional evidence to accept the same. In such a situation it cannot be said that any perversity has been committed by the Consolidation Officer. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further laid stress on the extract of the Family Register. The Consolidation Officer has assessed the said evidence and has found that the same does not bear any indication as to who has issued the said certified copy and therefore the same cannot be believed. If the petitioner relied on the same then the Panchayat Secretary who maintains the official register relating thereto ought to have been produced to prove the contents of the family register. That having not been done, the evidence remains uncorroborated. 9. In such a situation no perversity can be attributed. The findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer have been affirmed in appeal and in revision also. There is no merit in the writ petition. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. —————