JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Mata Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Jay Prakash Singh Vats, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. Under challenge is an order dated 21.6.2024 passed by the D.D.C. Pratapgarh rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners, as a consequence, the order passed by the S.O.C. dated 12.3.2019 has been affirmed, resultantly, the claim of the petitioners seeking co-tenancy rights in the disputed Khata has been turned down. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed Khata nos.419 and 396 situate in Gram Lauli Pokhtakham, Pargana and Tehsil Patti, District Pratapgarh are the subject matter of the controversy. It is stated that the petitioner and the private respondent no.4 were members of the joint Hindu family and the property is coming down in the family from the common ancestors. It is also urged that in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the pedigree has been given. It is stated that in the base year Khatauni, the name of the petitioners alongwith that of the private respondent no.4 was recorded in the Khata No.419, however Khata No.396 was exclusively recorded in the name of private respondent no.4 by mistake. 4. It is urged that this is the second round of litigation inasmuch as in the first round, the petitioners had filed their objections under Section 9 -A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 and the matter came up upto the High Court from where the matter was remanded to decide the matter, afresh. 5. It is submitted that the private respondent no.4 did not file any objection insofar as Khata No.419 is concerned and as such and even if at all the petitioners were unable to establish their claim of co tenancy insofar as the Khata No.396 is concerned, but nevertheless the claim of the petitioners could not be rejected in respect of Khata No.419. However, since the name of the petitioners continued in the base year Khatauni in respect of Khata No.419 and in absence of any objections by the private respondent no.4, the said entry should have continued and there was no occasion for the three consolidation courts to have deleted the names of the petitioners from Khata no.419. 6. However, since the name of the petitioners continued in the base year Khatauni in respect of Khata No.419 and in absence of any objections by the private respondent no.4, the said entry should have continued and there was no occasion for the three consolidation courts to have deleted the names of the petitioners from Khata no.419. 6. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that private respondent no.4 did not file any evidence either in the first round of litigation or even in the second round, however at the fag end of proceedings, the private respondent no.4 furnished a copy of the family register to substantiate that the pedigree as set up by the petitioners was different and in such circumstances, the same should not have been noticed by the three consolidation authorities but by relying upon the same, it has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice in depriving the co tenancy rights to the petitioners in respect of Khata No.419 and consequently, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Shri Vats learned counsel for the private respondent at the outset submits that the alleged pedigree as mentioned by the petitioners in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, is not correct. It is further urged that the private respondent has also given his pedigree which is part of his short counter affidavit where it has been stated that the common ancestor was Nankau who was survived by his two sons Bhagauti Deen and Shanker. It is further stated that private respondent no.4 Ram Chandar is son of Ram Nihore who in turn is the son of Bhagauti Deen. It is urged that the petitioners allege Ram Asrey, to be the son of Bhulai and Bhulai is alleged to be the son of Bhagauti Deen, is a false averment and in any case Bhulai and Ram Asrey do not come in the family pedigree of the private respondent no.4. It is urged that this basic objection was raised by the private respondent no.4 and taking note of the aforesaid as well as the fact that no evidence to establish the co-tenancy rights was furnished by the petitioners, hence their claim was rightly rejected and the petition being concluded by concurrent findings of fact do not require any interference, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. 8. The court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. The undisputed facts which emerge from the record are as follows:- (i) Nankau was the common ancestor who was survived by Bhaghauti Deen and Shanker. It is also undisputed that Shanker died issueless and his rights devolved on Bhaghauti Deen and upon his death, the same was inherited by his son Ram Nihore and then it came in the hands of private respondent no.4. (ii) The change in the pedigree from Bhaghauti Deen onwards is in dispute inasmuch as the petitioners claim that Bhulai was the son of Bhagauti Deen whereas the private respondent urged that Ram Nihore was son of Bhagauti Deen and Bhulai was never the son of Bhagauti Deen. It is also undisputed that dispute relates to Two Khata Nos.396 and 419. It is also not disputed that even though the names of the petitioners was not recorded in Khata No.396 but they never assailed or raised any objection regarding their claim as co tenancy insofar as the Khata No.396 is concerned. (iii) It is not disputed that no material was brought on record to indicate that Bhulai was the son of Bhagauti Deen. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, if the case of the petitioners claiming co tenancy right is examined, it would reveal that there is no material to indicate as to how Bhulai claimed to be the son of Bhagauti Deen. It was always open for the petitioners to have led the evidence to establish that the disputed Khatas belonged to the common ancestor and that the petitioners and the private respondent were the members of the join Hindu family coming down from the common ancestors, however this has not been established nor any material has been brought before this court to establish that the petitioners and the private respondent belong to the same family. 11. There is a specific objection from the side of the respondent no.4 disputing that Bhulai was not the son of Bhagauti Deen. Once such an objection had been taken, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to dispel the said contention by leading cogent evidence to establish that Bhulai was the son of Bhagauti Deen. 11. There is a specific objection from the side of the respondent no.4 disputing that Bhulai was not the son of Bhagauti Deen. Once such an objection had been taken, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to dispel the said contention by leading cogent evidence to establish that Bhulai was the son of Bhagauti Deen. Another fact which was required to be established by cogent evidence was that both the Khata Nos.396 and 419 was ever recorded in the name of common ancestor. It was also required to be established that the petitioners, as claim, and the private respondent no.4 were part of joint Hindu family. The same has not been done. There has been no explanation from the side of the petitioners to indicate as to under what circumstances, the petitioners did not claim co-tenancy rights in respect of the Khata No.396 while their claim was confined only to Khata No.419. In case if the petitioners were so sure of the fact that they belong to the same family and the property was joint, then they ought to have claimed co tenancy rights in both the Khatas and not in respect of one. 12. In this context, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the names of the petitioners were also recorded in the base year Khatauni in respect of Khata No.419, hence there was no requirement for the petitioners to have claimed any right. The consolidation authorities were not justified in deleting the names of the petitioners in respect of Khata No.419 when the private respondent no.4 did not raise any objection in this regard. 13. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners does not sound to be applicable inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioners who claimed co-tenancy rights and it was their duty to establish it. The issue regarding co-tenancy rights as well as property belonging to a joint hindu family was considered by this Court in the case of Lalta Prasad and others Vs. Haunsla Prasad and others , 2021 (9) ADJ 1670 (LB) wherein various ingredients required to establish co- tenancy as well as joint Hindu family have been considered by this Court. 14. The issue regarding co-tenancy rights as well as property belonging to a joint hindu family was considered by this Court in the case of Lalta Prasad and others Vs. Haunsla Prasad and others , 2021 (9) ADJ 1670 (LB) wherein various ingredients required to establish co- tenancy as well as joint Hindu family have been considered by this Court. 14. Applying the aforesaid propositions as noticed by this Court in the case of Lalta Prasad and others (supra), which is based on various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court, it is found that the petitioners have failed to establish their case for a joint Hindu family or in respect of co-tenancy. The petitioners have failed to establish the correctness of the pedigree and they have not shown as to how Ram Asrey and Santosh the petitioners, claimed to be the grand sons of Bhagauti Deen. In absence of the necessary requisites to establish co tenancy and joint Hindu family property, this Court does not find that there is any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners in the absence of any cogent material and evidence to establish the co-tenancy as well as joint Hindu family as alleged. The Consolidation officer, the S.O.C. as well as D.D.C. have clearly recorded findings that the petitioners could not establish their pedigree connecting themselves to be the successors in interest of Bhagauti Deen. This is clearly a finding of fact which in absence of any contrary evidence, cannot be said to be perverse. Moreover, this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India usually does not interfere with the finding of fact unless it is shown to be perverse. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this court does not find any merit in the case. 16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage.