JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Dutt Ojha, learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner-Ram Pyari had died during the pendency of the writ petition and is now substituted through her heirs. The respondent No. 3 has also died during the pendency of the writ petition and is duly substituted through his heirs. 3. The dispute relates to the claim of tenancy rights in respect to the disputed Khata where the petitioner Ram Pyari claimed 1/2 share on the basis of the following pedigree. Choharja Dukhi Triloki Nath Ram Padarath Ganga Prasad Ram Pyari (Widow) 4. The contention raised is that the property had been acquired jointly through joint family funds and that no partition had taken place and as such the petitioner was entitled for 1/2 share in the property in dispute. It was further contended that the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, namely certain letters which reflected that the jointness of the family continued. The Consolidation Officer relying on the said evidence and the entries as well as the execution of a lease by the Zamindar, came to the conclusion that the property appears to have been passed on to Triloki Nath as a joint family property and in the absence of any partition the petitioner was entitled for 1/2 share over the said property. The Settlement Officer Consolidation reversed the said order of the Consolidation Officer. The appellate order has been affirmed whereafter the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Sri S.C. Verma contends that the evidence that was led before the Consolidation Officer was sufficient to conclude that the property was joint family property and the reversal of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is erroneous. He contends that the statement made on behalf of the petitioner and the witnesses indicated that the partition had taken place much thereafter and the deceased respondent Trioloki Nath never entered into the witness box to deny the said contentions. He, therefore, submits that the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner remained unrebutted and hence the order of the Consolidation Officer did not deserve any reversal. 6. He, therefore, submits that the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner remained unrebutted and hence the order of the Consolidation Officer did not deserve any reversal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that as a matter of fact, the Consolidation Officer himself recorded a finding that the lease was executed by the Zamindar Smt. Azizul Nisha which was solely in the name of Triloki Nath and a compromise was also entered into on ejectment which did not indicate the inclusion of the name of Ram Padarath, as such the order of the Consolidation Officer drawing inference, that it was a joint family property was based on surmises and conjectures. He contends that no other evidence was led in relation to the acquisition of the property as a joint family property being retained by Triloki Nath as a Karta and hence the Consolidation Officer committed a manifest error by drawing an inference on the basis of certain letters which in law have no evidentiary value. He, therefore, contends that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation rightly reversed the said findings which cannot be said to be perverse and the same has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a perusal of the records, there is no evidence that might have been led to indicate the date of death of Ram Padarath or any partition having entered into between their successors. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the entire record is silent even on the issue as to who was the elder brother between the two and whether Triloki Nath had entered into a settlement with the Zamindar as ‘Karta’ of the family or not. 8. This featureless blank in the evidence, therefore, does not lead to an inference or a conclusion that the property had been acquired as a joint family property. The lease deed was admittedly executed in the name of Triloki Nath and he stood recorded thereafter for decades together. In the absence of any cogent proof to establish joint acquisition of the property the inference drawn by the Consolidation Officer was rightly reversed in appeal and affirmed in the revision. 9. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. —————