JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents in both the connected writ petitions. Accordingly, noticing that the petition is of the year 1978 and is listed under the head that 'the cases shall not adjourned', the Court has proceeded to hear learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of proceedings, several parties have died and an application for substitution was moved by the petitioner and the legal heirs have been brought on record. However, for the sake of convenience, the Court shall be referring to the parties as they were originally impleaded in the writ petition. 4. The property in question relates to Khata No.279 situate in Sukkhapur, Etaura, District-Ayodhya. The said property was recorded in the name of the petitioner in the basic year Khatauni. Smt. Jairaji the private respondent had filed objections claiming share in the property in question. The other private respondents, namely, respondent Nos.2 to 6 sought a right of co-tenancy and they too filed their objections under Section 9(A)(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, two issues were to be adjudicated by the Consolidation Officer. One relating to the claim of Jairaji, who claimed to be the widow of Ram Asrey and was claiming half right in the property on the basis of succession; whereas private respondent Nos.2 to 6 were claiming the rights of co-tenancy. The Consolidation Officer framed two issues and while considering the issue No.1 regarding the status of Jairaji and as to whether she the widow of Ram Asrey had remarried and thus would not inherit. However, after leading evidence, it was held that Jairaji had remarried, hence, her objections came to be dismissed. Insofar as the private respondent Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, their objections claiming co-tenancy was allowed by means of the judgement dated 21.01.1974. 6. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed before the S.O.C. One bearing No.1197 was instituted by Rebai assailing the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby co-tenancy rights were granted to respondent Nos.2 to 6. 6. Against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, two appeals were filed before the S.O.C. One bearing No.1197 was instituted by Rebai assailing the order of the Consolidation Officer, whereby co-tenancy rights were granted to respondent Nos.2 to 6. The other appeal bearing No.1190 was filed by Jairaji, whereby her claim in the disputed Khata was turned down by the C.O. The S.O.C. after taking note of the evidence on record found that it could not be established that after the death of Ram Asrey, Smt. Jairaji had remarried and nor the custom of Ghar Baithawa form of marriage was proved. It was also noticed that Jairaji had started living with brother-in-law of Rebai, but the issue of re-marriage was proved. The S.O.C. noticed that since there was a custom of Ghar Baithawa in the community to which Jairaji belonged for inheritance, hence, it found that Smt. Jairaji would not fall within the category of widow of Ram Asrey. Hence, the appeal preferred by Jairaji bearing No.1190 was dismissed. However, the appeal preferred by Rabei bearing No.1197 was allowed and the claim of private respondent Nos.2 to 6 claiming co-tenancy was rejected. 7. In the aforesaid backdrop, again two revisions came to be filed before D.D.C., Faizabad. Revision No.820 was filed by Smt. Jairaji, whereby the claim had been rejected by the C.O. and S.O.C. as upon remarriage Jairaji could not be treated as widow of Ram Asrey and another revision bearing No.821 was filed by private respondent Nos.2 to 6, whereby the claim of cotenancy was turned down by S.O.C. Both the revisions were heard and decided by the D.D.C. by means of its judgement dated 14.08.1978, allowing both the revisions. As a result, Smt. Jairaji was also given a right in the property treating her to be the widow of Ram Asrey and the revision preferred by private respondent Nos.2 to 6 was also allowed granting them the right of co-tenancy. It is in the aforesaid context that Rebai filed two writ petitions; (i) Writ-B No.1998 of 1978 was filed, whereby he challenged the order of D.D.C. allowing the revision of private respondent Nos.2 to 6 while the other writ petition bearing Writ-B No.1843 of 1983 was filed assailing the order passed by the D.D.C. insofar as it allowed the revision of Smt. Jairaji. It is in the aforesaid context that both the writ petitions were heard and have been decided by this common judgement. 8. Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revisional court had exceeded its jurisdiction inasmuch as it reappraised the evidence and has reversed the findings of the fact, which is not within the scope of the jurisdiction as conferred under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953. It is further submitted that in the case of private respondent Nos.2 to 6, their claim of co-tenancy was not made out, yet, the revisional court committed an error in granting the same. Shri M.E. Khan further urges that in the case of Jairaji also the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction as it entered into the question of fact and recorded a finding that Jairaji was the widow of Ram Asrey and though, the two courts below, i.e., CO and S.O.C. found that Smt. Jairaji after the death of Ram Asrey had left and started residing with Ram Deo and later she further moved ahead and was residing with Ram Tirath and in the aforesaid circumstances, it was amply proved that Smt. Jairaji had remarried and accordingly, she could not be treated as the widow of Ram Asrey, hence, was not entitled to any share and to that extent, the revisional court has committed an error. 9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. 10. The Court first proposes to take up the issue of Smt. Jairaji, which is the subject matter of Writ-B No.1843 of 1983. Insofar as this petition is concerned, it was the claim of the petitioner that Smt. Jairaji was the widow of Ram Asrey and she had moved ahead and was residing with Ram Deo. In order to establish the same, certain witnesses were examined, who were the priests, who allegedly stated that they had witnessed the Ghar Baithawa custom marriage. 11. However, from the perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that whosoever takes a plea of setting up a custom and that a marriage has taken place as per the said custom, the burden is on the said party to prove it. 11. However, from the perusal of the material on record, it would indicate that whosoever takes a plea of setting up a custom and that a marriage has taken place as per the said custom, the burden is on the said party to prove it. From the perusal of the material on record, it is found that Rebai had taken a plea that after the death of Ram Asrey, Jairaji had left and was living with Ram Deo, but the fact remains that Ram Deo was the relative (son-in-law) of Rebai. Yet, he was not produced as witness to substantiate the fact that Jairaji had solemnized the Ghar Baithwa custom marriage with Ram Deo. Thus, it would be found that the CO and the S.O.C. relying upon the aforesaid statements had held that Jairaji had remarried after the death of Ram Asrey, but it failed to notice that in order to establish a custom, first it has to be pleaded and then proved. It is also not disputed that Rebai and Ram Deo were closely related as the sister of Rebai was married with Ram Deo, yet, he was neither produced as a witness and the two persons who were said to be the priests, who had witnessed the said wedding, in their cross-examination could not substantiate the same. Rather, they stated that they did not remember how many marriages they have got solemnized and their testimony was not found credible. 12. In view of the aforesaid and noticing the reasoning given by the D.D.C., this Court does not find that there is any error, which may persuade this Court to intervene as the petitioner himself failed to establish the custom and that Smt Jairaji had remarried as per the said custom. No effort was made to summon his brother-in-law Ram Deo and thus the marriage as per the custom was not proved and to the aforesaid extent, the finding recorded by the D.D.C. cannot be faulted. For the said reasons, this Court does not find favour with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, Writ-B No.1843 of 1983 for the reasons aforesaid stands dismissed. 13. For the said reasons, this Court does not find favour with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, Writ-B No.1843 of 1983 for the reasons aforesaid stands dismissed. 13. As far as Writ-B No.1998 of 1978 is concerned, wherein private respondent Nos.2 to 6 had claimed their rights of cotenancy, it would be seen that co-tenancy was granted by the C.O., but the claim of co-tenancy was dismissed by S.O.C. In this context, if the material on record is seen, it would be found that the pedigree as set up and mentioned in the writ petition, which has also been taken note by the Consolidation Officer, it would be found that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the same. However, when Rebai was examined as witness, in his statement, he had admitted that when the disputed property was acquired, at the relevant time the family was joint and the land of Ugharpur and Sukkhapur, Etaura were both acquired much earlier and even in the Khatauni of 1950 fasli year it indicated that name of Ram Samujh was recorded with a period of tenure of about 30 years. Thus, it would be seen that in light of the aforesaid admission by Rebai himself that the property was acquired when the family was living jointly and there is nothing on record to indicate that at any later point of time that there was partition and the property was bifurcated or divided between the co-tenure holders. Hence, taking the aforesaid admission, which was noticed also by the Consolidation Officer, the D.D.C. has allowed the claim of private respondent Nos.2 to 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute or explain the admission of Rebai and in the aforesaid circumstances, where admission can be treated to be the best evidence and there has been no effort of Rebai to explain the said admission, which has been made the basis by the D.D.C. Hence, in this case as well this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the D.D.C. upholding the order of the C.O. regarding grant of co-tenancy to respondent Nos.2 to 6. 14. 14. Insofar as the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that revisional authority has reappraised the evidence is also not quite correct for the reason that the D.D.C. has merely perused the evidence and in the given facts have drawn inference, which are borne out from the evidence on record. However, in this petition of the year 1978, where more than 45 years have lapsed, hence if at this stage the matter is remanded to the court below, yet in light of the evidence on record and noticing that Rebai cannot be permitted to lead fresh evidence and on the basis of the existing evidence the findings recorded by the D.D.C. cannot be held to be bad, thus, this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction is not inclined to remand the matter on this technical issue. In light of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the aforesaid petition specially where Rebai himself admits that the family was joint at the time of property was acquired. 15. In view of the aforesaid, the order passed by D.D.C. dated 14.08.1978 is affirmed. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. 16. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.