ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. Instant intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 26th April, 2017. 2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the present appellants were impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in the writ petition and none appeared on their behalf before the Court on 26.04.2017 despite service and the ld. Single Judge has recorded in its order dated 26.04.2017 that counsel also pleaded no instructions because the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 had withdrawn the file from him and respondent No. 7 had never approached to him at any later stage and there was no defence which either the appellants have filed before the ld. Single Judge. 3. While appreciating the orders of the Board of Revenue impugned in the proceedings filed at the instance of the writ petitioners as referred to in the order impugned dated 26th April, 2017 and manifest from the record, the revenue suit was originally filed by late Narain (adopted son of Chouth Mal) and his son for correction of the entries in the revenue record and for permanent injunction in reference to subject land in question and his specific averment in the plaint was that Narain was the adopted son of Chouth Mal, who was recorded tenant of the subject land in question and at the same time, he was not sure whether the theory of adoption will prevail upon the court for correction of entries prayed for, in alternative relied upon the Will being executed in his favour by the testator Late Chouth Mal. 4. It has come on record that Chouth Mal left behind his wife Pyari Devi and daughter Kaushalya. However, his wife also later (on died and the writ petitioners are none other than the legal heirs of late Kaushalya, the daughter of late Shri Chouth Mal, who was the recorded tenant of the subject land in question. The legal heirs of Kaushalya (daughter of Chouth Mal) and the present appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of the late Narain (claiming adopted son of Chouth Mal) preferred appeal against the order of SDO before the Revenue Appellate Authority and cross appeal by the legal heirs of late Kaushalya. 5. The legal heirs of Kaushalya (daughter of Chouth Mal) and the present appellants are claiming to be the legal heirs of the late Narain (claiming adopted son of Chouth Mal) preferred appeal against the order of SDO before the Revenue Appellate Authority and cross appeal by the legal heirs of late Kaushalya. 5. The suit was original filed by the present appellants (plaintiffs) for correction of entries, declaration and perpetual injunction stating inter-alia that the subject land in question of village Mahswarkalan, Teshil & District Dausa which was recorded in the name of Pyari Devi and after her sad demise it was at one point of time entered in the name of the plaintiffs but later on when their being any authority, the name of defendant No. 2 Kaushalya Devi was entered without affording an opportunity to the appellants. 6. It was further stated that late Narain was the adopted son of Chouth Mal and Pyari Devi and after the demise of Chouth Mal, the property was recorded in the name of late Narain (adopted son) and after the demise of Narain, the property ought to have been devolved & mutated in the name of the present plaintiffs who are none other the legal representatives/sons of late Narain. 7. The suit was originally decreed by the ld. District Collector, Dausa and half of the property of recorded khatedar Chouth Mal was treated to be devolved in favour of the appellants being legal representatives of late Narain, who was claimed to be the adopted son of late Chouth Mal and to that extent the entries recorded in the revenue records in favour of Kaushalya Devi D/o Chouth Mal were cancelled. 8. On being challenged by Kaushalya Devi in appeal, the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority after hearing the parties vide order dated 10th October, 2003 arrived to the conclusion that Kaushalya Devi intestate and was the only legal representative of late Chouth Mal and there was no primary/secondary evidence on record by which it could be inferred that late Narain was ever adopted by late Chouth Mal and Kaushalya Devi and be declared to be a recorded tenant of the entire subject land in question of which late Chouth Mal was the original recorded khatedar. 9. Order of ld. 9. Order of ld. Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10th October, 2003 came to be challenged in appeal by the legal representatives of late Narain impleading the legal representatives of late Kaushalya Devi as respondents as she too died during pendency and appeal was decided by the ld. Board of Revenue vide order dated 28th May, 2009 while setting aside order of the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10th October, 2003 restored back the order originally passed by the ld. District Collector, Dausa dated 30th March, 2002 giving effect to order of the ld. District Collector, Dausa half of the share belongs to legal representatives of late Narain, the adopted son of Chouth Mal. 10. Order of the ld.Board of Revenue came to be challenged by the legal representatives of late Kaushalya Devi, who was the daughter of recorded khatedar late Chouth Mal, by filing of the writ petition. 11. The ld. Single Judge of this court after examining the entire material on record arrived to the conclusion that there was neither a registered adoption-deed nor any other tangible evidence on record by which late Narain can be claimed to be the adopted son of late Chouth Mal and so far as the Will which was the alternative plea raised by late Narain and so also by his legal representatives, being executed by the testator in favour of late Narain, nothing was on record and even before the court, counsel has not pressed devolving of property on the alleged Will, of which reference has been made and in absence of any tangible evidence on record, at least late Narain could not have been treated to be the adopted son of late Chouth Mal and taking note thereof, it was observed that late Kaushalya Devi being the only daughter of the recorded tenant Chouth Mal alone be considered to be the recorded tenant and this what was observed by the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority in its order dated 10th October, 2003 and finally set aside order of the ld. Board of Revenue and restored the order of the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10th October, 2003. 12. Revenue Appellate Authority in its order dated 10th October, 2003 and finally set aside order of the ld. Board of Revenue and restored the order of the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10th October, 2003. 12. We consider it appropriate to quote the final order passed by the ld.Revenue Appellate Authority dated 10th October, 2003, which read ad infra:- ^^mijksDr foospu ,oe~ fo'ys"k.k ds ijhizs{; esa vihykUV dkS'kY;k dh vihy la[;k 30@2002 Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk jsLiksMsaV jkeLo:i oxSjgk dh vihy la[;k 62@2002 [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k ,oe~ fMdzh fnuakd 30-03-2002 [kkfjt fd;s tkrs gSA rFkk vihykUV dkS'kY;k nsoh iq=h eq0 I;kjh iRuh pkSFkey dks fookfnr lkfcd vkjkth [k0ua0 135 jdck 5 ck/kkA fcLok] [kljk uEcj 177 jdck 2 ch?kk 13 fcLok] [kljk uEcj 264 jdck 5 ch?kk 15 fcLok ftlds gky [k0ua0 397 jdck 0-35 gSDVj] [kljk uEcj 398 jdck 0-42 gSDVj] [kljk uEcj 400 jdck 0-46 gSDVj] [kljk uEcj 520 jdck 0-61 gSDVj] [kljk uEcj 794 jdck 0-88 gSDVj] [kljk uEcj 795 jdck 0-50 gSDVj jdck 3-25 gSDVj xzke egs'oj dyk rglhy nkSlk ftyk nkSlk dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA ipkZ fMdzh tkjh gksA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh vkns'k ,oa fMdzh dh izfr ds lkFk ykSVkbZ tkosA bl U;k;ky; dh i=koyh Qsly 'kqekj gksdj nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA** 13. There was no piece of evidence, documentary or oral, placed by the appellants on record in rebuttal disturbing the finding recorded by the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority in its order which was confirmed by the ld. Single Judge under its order impugned dated 26th April, 2017 and it was not disputed that there is no documentary evidence either to substantiate adoption of late Narain by late Chouth Mal or through Will, which at one point of time was claimed to have been executed by its testator in favour of late Narain. 14. After hearing counsel for the appellant & going through the record, we are of the view that in the absence of there being any evidence to substantiate the alleged adoption deed of late Narain by late Chouth Mal or Will being executed by the testator in favour of late Narain, there appears no reason for late Narain to claim adopted son of Chouth Mal and Pyari Devi for co-sharing the property of late Chouth Mal and this what being appreciated & considered by the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority and the ld. Single Judge also, on appreciation of material on record, confirmed the finding of the ld. Revenue Appellate Authority under its order impugned. 15. After we have heard counsel for the appellant, we find no error being committed by the ld. Single Judge in the order impugned which may call for our interference. 16. Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.