JUDGMENT : MANISH KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the revisional order dated 27.02.1981 passed by Respondent No. 1-Deputy Director, Consolidation, Sultanpur and with a further prayer to direct the respondents not to give effect to and implement the revisional order dated 27.02.1981. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners Ram Jagat and Ram Kumar are the grand son of Late Bhagwandin, who was the original tenure holder of Gata Nos.19 Village Rampur having 1/2 share, Khata No. 24 Village Supahi, Khata Nos. 35, 205, 221, 232 and 305 Village Numae having 1/3 share. Late Bhagwandin had four sons, namely Ram Achhaibar, Gurdin (who died issueless), Ram Dhan and Ram Sahai (who also died issueless). Ram Achhaibar had one son Lutai @ Sheo Shankar and Ram Dhan had two sons namely Ram Jagat and Ram Kumar i.e. the petitioners. After the demise of Ram Sahai the property/land was to be devolved upon the petitioners and Lutai @ Sheo Shankar on the basis of the inheritance as Ram Sahai had died issueless. But an objection was filed by one Kailasha @ Anesa claiming herself to be a daughter of Late Ram Sahai (Kailasha @ Anesa alleged daughter of Late Ram Sahai) was initially Respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition and after her demise her legal heirs have been substituted as 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3, whereas according to the petitioners she was daughter of Lutai @ Sheo Shankar and just to grab rightful claim of the petitioners on the property she was presented as a daughter of Late Ram Sahai. 4. It is further submitted that Kailasha @ Anesa was the daughter of Lutai @ Sheo Shankar and during course of argument it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Kailasha @ Anesa was daughter of Ram Achhaibar. 5. It is further submitted that before the court below the petitioners had filed the documents i.e. Parivar Register of the family of Late Ram Sahai prepared after demise of Late Ram Sahai, in which Respondent No. 2 Kailasha @ Anesa was not shown as member of the family of Late Ram Sahai. 6. 5. It is further submitted that before the court below the petitioners had filed the documents i.e. Parivar Register of the family of Late Ram Sahai prepared after demise of Late Ram Sahai, in which Respondent No. 2 Kailasha @ Anesa was not shown as member of the family of Late Ram Sahai. 6. It is further submitted that the documents i.e. the death register and the birth register was filed to establish that Late Ram Sahai had only one daughter namely Hansha, who expired at the age of 1 and 1/2 years. All these documentary evidences were completely ignored and misread by the Revisional Court and passed the order against the petitioners treating Kailasha @ Anesa as daughter of Late Ram Sahai without there being any evidence on the record. 7. On the other hand Sri Ravi Shankar Tiwari, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2/legal heirs/newly substituted respondents has submitted that the petitioners since the very inception, after the demise of Late Ram Sahai are trying to grab his property showing him as issueless. It is also submitted that Kailasha @ Anesa was the daughter of Late Ram Sahai and filed objections and in support of her submission she had enclosed the copy of the Parivar Register of the year 1939 in which the Respondent No. 2 was shown as daughter of Late Ram Sahai, wheres the petitioners had filed the copy of the Parivar Register dated 4.8.1978 i.e. after the demise of Late Ram Sahai as Late Ram Sahai had expired on 19.06.1978. 8. It is further submitted that placing reliance upon the voter lists in which Kailasha @ Anesa was shown as wife of Ram Kishor, which is of no help in determining as to whether Respondent No. 2 was the daughter of Late Ram Sahai or not. Admittedly, she was married to Ram Kishor and her name had rightly been entered as wife of Ram Kishor. It is also submitted that the petitioners had never disputed the copy of the Parivar Register of the year 1939 filed/adduced by the Respondent.2. 9. Admittedly, she was married to Ram Kishor and her name had rightly been entered as wife of Ram Kishor. It is also submitted that the petitioners had never disputed the copy of the Parivar Register of the year 1939 filed/adduced by the Respondent.2. 9. It is further submitted that initially the petitioners had come with a case that Late Ram Sahai was issueless, thereafter improvised their case that he had one daughter who died at the age of 1 and 1/2 years and at the time of cross-examination it has been admitted by the petitioners that Late Ram Sahai had four daughters. 10. It is further submitted that the petitioners had not enclosed any documents before the court below that Kailasha @ Anesa was daughter of Ram Achhaibar. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case the position which emerges out in the present case is that the dispute is with regard to the share of Late Ram Sahai in the property of his father late Bhagwandin. The petitioners have come with a case that Late Ram Sahai had died issueless and in the pedigree as shown in Para 5 of the writ petition the name of Respondent No. 2 was not shown as successor of Late Ram Sahai nor the Respondent No. 2 was shown as either dauther of Lutai @ Sheo Shankar or Ram Achhaibar. The petitioners had also come with a case that Respondent No. 2 was daughter of Lutai @ Sheo Shankar and now they have come with a case that she is not the daughter of Luttai @ Shankar but she is the daughter of Ram Achhaibar i.e. father of Lutai but the petitioners had not filed any documents before the court below to establish that Respondent No. 2 was either daughter of Lutai @ Sheo Shankar or Ram Acchaibar. 12. 12. The petitioners after showing Late Ram Sahai as issueless had produced documentary evidence to show that Late Ram Sahai had only one daughter namely Hansha, who expired only at the age of 1 and 1/2 years and the documentary evidence adduced in support of that submission were the death register and the birth register to establish their case that at the time of demise of Late Ram Sahai he had no surviving child, so he was issueless, but during the cross-examination the petitioners had admitted that Late Ram Sahai had four daughters, once it was admitted during the cross-examination by the petitioners that Late Ram Sahai had four daughters and had not produced the death register and the birth register for the other three daughters, so their claim that Late Ram Sahai died issueless is not tenable in the eyes of law and they failed to prove their case. 13. In view of the facts, circumstances and the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that no interference is called for in the revisional order dated 27.2.1981 passed by Respondent No. 2. The writ petition is devoid of merits, hence dismissed.