JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri K. Ajit, for the petitioners and Sri Shreeprakash Singh, for respondents-4. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 18.02.2010, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.11.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31.05.2016, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to the land of basic consolidation year khatas 259, 674 and 1048, of village Dadiyal Ehatmali, tahsil Tanda, district Rampur. which were recorded in the name of Gyani son of Tika Ram (now represented by the petitioners). Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) filed an objection (registered as Case 48/2009-10) under Section 9-A of the Act, on 01.05.1997 claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by Bhagwan Das that the land in dispute was ancestral property, from the time of common ancestor Tika Ram son Moti, who had two sons Kaluwa and Gyani. Kaluwa died about 40 years ago during life time of his father Tika Ram, leaving behind him, his minor son Bhagwan Das as his only heir. After death of Tika Ram, the name of Gyani alone was recorded, in the revenue record, as at that time Bhagwan Das was minor. Gyani also died and was inherited by his five sons Bhola Ram, Mohan, Kashi Ram, Chandra Pal and Dharam Pal. Bhagwan Das was though out in joint possession of the land in dispute along with Gyani and after his death, along with the petitioners but his name was not recorded in revenue record. The petitioners contested the objection and stated that Bhagwan Das did not belong to his family. Real name of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was Bhagwanti, who is son of Natthu son of Kashi. In collusion with his brothers, Hira and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu, Bhagwanti did not claim heirship of his father Natthu. Tika Ram had only one son Gyani. Tika Ram died 40 years ago, since then name of Gyani alone was recorded over the land in dispute. Bhagwan Das never raised any objection in this respect, although he had become major long before. Had he any genuine claim, he could have filed a suit within three years after attaining majority. He malafide filed this objection on false allegations, changing his name as Bhagwan Das son of Kaluwa, during consolidation. Bhagwan Das never raised any objection in this respect, although he had become major long before. Had he any genuine claim, he could have filed a suit within three years after attaining majority. He malafide filed this objection on false allegations, changing his name as Bhagwan Das son of Kaluwa, during consolidation. The objection was tried and decided by Consolidation Officer, Rampur, who by his order dated 20.12.2001 held that Kaluwa father of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was son of Tika Ram. Kaluwa was predeceased to his father, Tika Ram as such after death of Tika Ram, Bhagwan Das inherited 1/2 share in the property in dispute along with Gyani. However in respect of some plots objection of Bhagwan Das was dismissed. The petitioners filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 167/413 and 168/414) from aforesaid order, which were dismissed by order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.09.2002. 4. The petitioners filed two revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 85/130 and 168/414) from aforesaid orders. Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) also filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 452/414) from the order of Consolidation Officer. All the revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur, who by the order dated 24.05.2008, allowed the revisions and set aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 20.12.2001 and 22.12.2001 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 01.09.2002 and remanded the matter to Consolidation Officer, for deciding the objection afresh after giving opportunity of fresh evidence to the parties. While remanding the case, Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer. 5. Although Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer, but after remand the petitioners avoided hearing before Consolidation Officer and did not adduce any evidence. Respondent-4 moved an application dated 19.11.2009 for summoning Gram Panchayat Officer to prove the certified copy of Pariwar Register filed by him. He deposited Rs. 800/- towards expenses of the witness. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.01.2010 summoned Gram Panchayat Officer along with original Pariwar Register, for recording his statement, fixing 27.01.2010. Fresh notices were also issued to the petitioners on 16.01.2010 fixing 27.01.2010. In spite of service of notice, Gram Panchayat Officer did not appear. He deposited Rs. 800/- towards expenses of the witness. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.01.2010 summoned Gram Panchayat Officer along with original Pariwar Register, for recording his statement, fixing 27.01.2010. Fresh notices were also issued to the petitioners on 16.01.2010 fixing 27.01.2010. In spite of service of notice, Gram Panchayat Officer did not appear. Hearing of the objection was being delayed as such, respondent-4 filed a writ petition (registered as Writ - B No. 46844 of 2009), which was disposed of by order dated 02.09.2009, directing Consolidation Officer to decide the objection expeditiously. Consolidation Officer, thereafter, heard the arguments of the parties and by his judgment dated 18.02.2010 held that from the copy of Pariwar Register, Photo Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India and Voter List of the village as well as oral evidence of witnesses Bhagwan Das (PW-1), Dilshukh (PW-2) and Shivraj (PW-3) it was proved that Bhagwan Das was son of Kaluwa, who was son of Tikaram. From the evidence adduced by the petitioners it was not proved that the name of Bhagwan Das was Bhagwanti or his father's name was Natthu. It is admitted to the parties that Tikaram died about 40 years ago and at that time Bhagwan Das was minor. The witnesses examined by the petitioners have deliberately concealed the essential facts relating to period of death of Kaluwa. Since the properties in dispute were ancestral properties from the time of Tikaram as such Bhagwan Das has 1/2 share in it. It is immaterial that after death of Tikaram, name of Gyani alone was recorded over it. On these findings, objection of respondent-4 has been allowed by order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.02.2010. 6. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 67) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Rampur, who by order dated 09.11.2012, found that Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the parties before Consolidation Officer, in remand order but the petitioners avoided hearing before him. Consolidation Officer again issued notices to the petitioners on 30.09.2009 fixing 07.10.2009, which were personally served upon the petitioners but they did not appear nor adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of Bhagwan Das. Findings recorded by Consolidation Officer did not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal. Consolidation Officer again issued notices to the petitioners on 30.09.2009 fixing 07.10.2009, which were personally served upon the petitioners but they did not appear nor adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of Bhagwan Das. Findings recorded by Consolidation Officer did not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, he dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 158 of 2012-13) from the aforesaid orders. In the revision, the petitioners filed an application dated 02.05.2013, for summoning Gram Panchayat Adhikari, to prove genuineness of certified copy of Pariwar Register filed by respondent-4. Subsequently they filed another application dated 06.06.2013 for admitting additional evidence of certified copies of Pariwar Register of Bhagwan Das, Bhola Singh, Chandra Pal Singh, Kashi Ram, Dharam Pal Singh, Mohan Singh and Rati Ram. These applications were heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 03.08.2013 held that Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 24.05.2008, remanded the case, giving opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of the both the parties before the Consolidation Officer but the petitioners deliberately absented and did not adduce any evidence before the Consolidation Officer. When High Court directed for expeditious disposal of the objection, then fresh notices were issued to the petitioners, which were personally served upon the petitioners but they again did not take any care for adducing evidence. The petitioners filed appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 18.02.2010, but in the appeal also they did not care for adducing any additional evidence. In case fresh evidence is admitted then fresh trial will be started. On these findings he rejected both the applications of the petitioners. The petitioners filed a writ petition (registered as Writ B No. 55741 of 3012 against aforesaid order, which was dismissed by this Court, noticing the fact that in the Copy of Pariwar Register, sought to be filed by the petitioners, also name of father of Bhagwan Das was noted as Kallu and not Natthu, as alleged. 7. Thereafter, the revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 31.05.2016, held that from order sheet of Consolidation Officer it was proved that Ram Swaroop (petitioner-5) along with their counsel were present before Consolidation Officer on 03.12.2008, 12.08.2009 and 27.01.2010. 7. Thereafter, the revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 31.05.2016, held that from order sheet of Consolidation Officer it was proved that Ram Swaroop (petitioner-5) along with their counsel were present before Consolidation Officer on 03.12.2008, 12.08.2009 and 27.01.2010. Respondent-4 summoned Sri Hari Om Sharma, Gram Panchayat Adhikari along with original Pariwar Register but he did not appear. From Pariwar register, Voter Identity Card of Bhagwan Das and Electoral Roll as well as oral evidence adduced by Bhagwan Das, it was proved that he was son of Kallu alias Kaluwa, who was son of Tikaram. Although Consolidation Officer held that Pariwar Register was no proved but he relied upon other documentary and oral evidence of respondent-4. In their objection, the petitioners took plea that real name of Bhagwan Das was Bhagwanti son of Natthu, but since 1997, they could not adduce any evidence in this respect. They could not produce any independent witness of the village to prove their plea in this respect. Photo of Bhagwan Das on his Voter Identity Card could not be denied by the petitioners. Findings of the Court below that Bhagwan Das was son of Kaluwa alias Kallu, who was son of Tikaram do not suffer from any illegality. On these findings, the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that name of Gyani (predecessor of the petitioners) was mutated in revenue record as an heir of Tikaram, who died in 1957. After about 20 years, in 1997, during consolidation, respondent-4 claimed co-tenancy along with Gyani in the land in dispute. Burden of proof was upon respondent-4 to prove that he was son of Kaluwa and Kaluwa was son of Tikaram. The petitioners have specifically denied this fact in their counter objection. Respondent-4 filed an extract of Pariwar Register to prove his parentage, which, on its face, was a forged document, inasmuch as it contains name of Kaluwa also although according to respondent-4, Kaluwa died in 1947, while Pariwar Register was prepared in 1970. Consolidation Officer found that authenticity of copy of Pariwar Register, filed by respondent-4, is not proved. At the verge of start of consolidation operation, respondent-4 began to manipulate and manufacture evidence in his favour. Consolidation Officer found that authenticity of copy of Pariwar Register, filed by respondent-4, is not proved. At the verge of start of consolidation operation, respondent-4 began to manipulate and manufacture evidence in his favour. He got his name recorded as Bhagwan Das son of Kaluwa, in Electoral Roll of 1995 although in Electoral Roll of the year 1984 and 1988, his name was recorded as Bhagwanti son of Natthu. The petitioners filed Electoral Roll of year 1984 and 1988, but consolidation authorities have illegally ignored these documents. Deputy Director of Consolidation has rejected the applications of the petitioners for additional evidence and summoning Gram Panchayat Adhikari on irrelevant considerations. In any case, Electoral Roll is not a conclusive evidence and findings relating to parentage cannot be based on it. There was absolutely no evidence to prove that Kaluwa was son of Tikaram. So far as oral evidence are concerned, statement of Dilsukh (PW-2) and Shivraj Singh (PW-3) were recorded in the year 2000. Dilsukh (PW-2), in his statement, has stated his age as 90 years. He further stated that at the time of death of Kaluwa, his age was 17-18 years. Shivraj Singh (PW-3), in his statement, has stated his age as 85 years. He further stated that at the time of death of Kaluwa, his age was 10-15 years. From aforesaid evidence, it was proved that Kaluwa died before 1930. However, according to own evidence of respondent-4, he was born in 1945. Thus parentage of respondent-4 on the basis of oral evidence is also not proved. The consolidation authorities are deciding the right of the parties for ever as such evidence on record ought to have been appreciated cautiously. Deputy Director of Consolidation is a last of Court of fact. He should have recorded his independent findings after examining entire evidence on record but he has illegally failed to exercise his jurisdiction as vested in him under law. Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 25.04.2008, remanded the matter giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence but in the absence of proper notice, the petitioners were deprived from giving their evidence. Orders of consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. Orders of consolidation authorities are liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. In the remand order dated 25.04.2008, Deputy Director of Consolidation fixed 16.06.2008 for appearance of both the parties before Consolidation Officer. The petitioners were revisionists in two revisions as such they cannot say that they had no knowledge of the date fixed by Deputy Director of Consolidation. Deputy Director of Consolidation recorded a findings that Ram Swaroop (petitioner-5) along with their counsel were present before Consolidation Officer on 03.12.2008, 12.08.2009 and 27.01.2010 and signed order sheet. This findings have not been challenged. Arguments that petitioners were not given proper opportunity to lead evidence is not liable to be accepted. They had sufficient time to lead their evidence in rebuttal as objection was filed in 1997 and case was decided by Consolidation Officer on 09.11.2012. 10. In order to prove his parentage, Bhagwan Das filed certified copy of Pariwar Register, Voter Identity Card of Bhagwan Das and Electoral Roll of 1995. The petitioners challenged authenticity of Pariwar Register, filed by Bhagwan Das. Bhagwan Das therefore moved an application dated 19.11.2009, for summoning, Sri Hari Om Sharma, Gram Panchayat Adhikari along with original Pariwar Register and also deposited expenses of witness. In spite of summoning order, Gram Panchayat Adhikari did not appear. Pariwar Register is maintained under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Registers) Rules, 1970. Certified copy of Pariwar Register is admissible in evidence under Section 109-A (2) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The petitioners, apart from their denial, could not adduce any evidence to prove that certified copy of Pariwar Register filed by respondent-4 was not an authentic document. Pariwar Register cannot be ignored only on the ground that it also contained name of Kaluwa, although he had died long before. Pariwar Register is corroborated with other documentary and oral evidence. The consolidation authorities have not committed any error in relying upon it. 11. Oral statement of Bhagwan Das to prove his pedigree is admissible in evidence under Section 50 of Evidence Act, 1872. Nothing has been said to discredit the statement of Bhagwan Das, who had fully proved his pedigree that Bhagwan Das was son of Kallu alias Kaluwa, who was son of Tikaram. 11. Oral statement of Bhagwan Das to prove his pedigree is admissible in evidence under Section 50 of Evidence Act, 1872. Nothing has been said to discredit the statement of Bhagwan Das, who had fully proved his pedigree that Bhagwan Das was son of Kallu alias Kaluwa, who was son of Tikaram. Supreme Court in Bant Singh v. Niranjan Singh, (2008) 4 SCC 75 , held that on a plain reading of the section 50 of Evidence Act, 1872, it is quite clear that it deals with relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the section. It appears to us that the essential requirements of the section are -- (1) there must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another; (2) in such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship is a relevant fact; (3) but the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship; in other words, the person must fulfill the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. If the person fulfills that condition, then what is relevant is his opinion expressed by conduct. Opinion means something more than mere retailing of gossip or of hearsay; it means judgment or belief, that is, a belief or a conviction resulting from what one thinks on a particular question. Now, the ''belief' or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved." 12. Now, the ''belief' or conviction may manifest itself in conduct or behaviour which indicates the existence of the belief or opinion. What the section says is that such conduct or outward behaviour as evidence of the opinion held is relevant and may, therefore, be proved." 12. Statement of Bhagwan Das was corroborated by two independent witnesses, namely Dilsukh (PW-2) and Shivraj (PW-3), who were residents of the same village and had personal knowledge of the facts stated by them. So far as their statement in respect of death of Kaluwa, is concerned, these witnesses are old and rustic villager and may not have memory of exact year of death of Kaluwa. Only on this ground their testimony is not liable to be disbelieved nor an inference can be drawn that Bhagwan Das was born long after death of Kaluwa as no one has taken this plea. Maxim "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" means (false in one thing, false in everything) is not followed in India by the Courts. Supreme Court in Raja v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 43 , held that the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", is not applicable in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of the rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. The witness cannot be branded as liars. 13. On the other hand, the petitioners took plea that real name of Bhagwan Das (respondent-4) was Bhagwanti, who was son of Natthu son of Kashi. In collusion with his brothers, Hira and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu, Bhagwanti did not claim heirship of his father Natthu, who died 20 years ago. If a person had planned to claim share in property of the petitioners 20 years ago, then there could be no reason for him for waiting for a such a long time. He could have filed a suit before Revenue Court, at that time itself. Even after planning, his name in Electoral Roll of the year 1984 and 1988 would not have been recorded incorrectly as said by the petitioner. Extract of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioners also contains name of respondent-4 as Bhagwan Das and his father's name as Kallu and not as Bhagwanti son of Natthu. Thus the petitioners failed to prove their case or disprove the case of Bhagwan Das. Extract of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioners also contains name of respondent-4 as Bhagwan Das and his father's name as Kallu and not as Bhagwanti son of Natthu. Thus the petitioners failed to prove their case or disprove the case of Bhagwan Das. They could not produce any independent witness of the village to prove their plea in this respect. Photo of Bhagwan Das on his Voter Identity Card could not be denied by the petitioners. When both the parties adduced evidence in respect of matter in issue, the Courts are required to consider all the evidence on record and place reliance on the evidence which is more probable. In the circumstance, the petitioners failed to prove their case, consolidation authorities relied upon evidence of respondent-4, which was more probable to prove his case. 14. Supreme Court in Sawarn Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 232 , State of A.P. Vs P.V. Hanumant Rao, (2003) 10 SCC 121 and Dalvir Singh Vs Municipal Council, AIR 2011 SC 2532 held that in regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice." 15. In view of aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed.