JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This Special Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th May, 2014 by which he has dismissed the writ petition against the order passed by the Board of Revenue on a review petition. 3. The suit filed by the elder brother of petitioners under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the year 1976 in the Revenue Court, was decreed on the ground that he was recorded as a khatedar and was in continuous cultivatory possession. A First Appeal and thereafter a Second Appeal was dismissed by Board of Revenue against the judgment disbelieving the plea of the appellant in the written statement that father of the plaintiff was cultivating the land and on his death, both the brothers had inherited tenency rights. In a writ petition filed against the concurrent judgments, some documents were filed by the appellant that the land was held by the father of two brothers. These documents were obtained from the library of the Jagirdar. The documents were taken on record on 9.11.2011 by allowing the application. Deciding the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the suit was filed in the year 1976 and that grand father of the present petitioners had deposed in support of the written statement, but the concurrent findings were recorded by the courts below, which did not suffer from any perversity for judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners alleged that the effect of the documents be considered, for which he may be permitted to file review petition before the Board of Revenue. Learned Single Judge accepted the request for liberty and permitted the petitioners to file a review petition alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The certified copies of the documents, which the petitioners wanted to place in the writ petition, were directed to be returned on furnishing xerox copies. 4. The Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition. It had considered the documents but did not find the documents to establish any new facts. 5. The certified copies of the documents, which the petitioners wanted to place in the writ petition, were directed to be returned on furnishing xerox copies. 4. The Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition. It had considered the documents but did not find the documents to establish any new facts. 5. Learned Single Judge, hearing the writ petition challenging the order of Board of Revenue dismissing the review application, upheld the findings of Board of Revenue in which a reference was made of the documents obtained and produced by the petitioners from the library of Jagirdar, which were not found relevant to establish their rights. 6. It is submitted that the documents established that the land was recorded in the name of father of parties and, thus, the petitioners had acquired the khatedari rights, by inheritance to the extent of half share with his brother. 7. The writ petition is not continuation of the suit. The admission of the document in a writ petition could not have given a right to the petitioners to get the matter remanded to consider their rights. In any case, while confirming the findings of the three revenue courts, this court gave liberty to the petitioners to file review before the Board of Revenue. 8. We have gone through the order of the Board of Revenue and do not find any error in the order as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge in which it was held that the effect of the document was considered and a finding was recorded that these documents did not establish any new facts, which may change the nature of the case to be considered for establishing the rights of the defendants, who are petitioners before us. 9. The suit was filed in the year 1976. The revenue courts had recorded consistent finding that the defendants could not prove their case that the land was in the khatedari of their father, from whom both the brothers had inherited. 10. The Special Appeal is dismissed.