Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition has been filed by the mother of late Kali Charan, Smt. Bai w/o Chedi the plaintiff in a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 seeking a declaration that she is the sole successor to the holding of her son and not the respondent No. 1, Nirmala, who claims herself to be the wife of late Kali Charan.

2. The dispute began after the death of late Kali Charan. Chhedi Lal, who is the father of late Kali Charan, was the recorded tenure holder, and after his death Kali Charan came to be recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged by the respondent No. 1, Nirmala that she is the widow of late Kali Charan and was, therefore, entitled to succeed to the holdings, and accordingly her name came to be mutated in the revenue records.

3. The petitioner Smt. Bai (since deceased) contested the said mutation proceedings but remained unsuccessful up to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 18437 of 2005 that had been filed by her substituted heir Bhonda. This Court while refusing to interfere with the mutation orders observed that the orders passed in mutation proceedings being summary in nature, would not come in the way of the regular proceedings under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The petitioner thereafter filed a regular suit under Section 229-B seeking declaration of her rights on the ground that she being the lawful heir was entitled to succeed to the holdings of late Kali Charan and that the respondent No. 1, Nirmala was not the lawfully wedded wife of her son and, therefore, was not entitled to succeed to the holding. Nirmala during the pendency of the proceedings sold the same to respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who are respondents herein and it is they, who are contesting the present writ petition. The original petitioner, Smt. Bai also died during the pendency of these proceedings on 22.11.2003 and she is represented by petitioner No. 1/1, Bhonda claiming himself to be her nephew and to have succeeded to the property under a registered Will dated 4.4.2002. The substitution of the petitioner and impleadment of the respondent-vendees were allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.5.2005.

4. The suit was decreed in favour of the mother and the trial Court came to the conclusion that Nirmala had been married to Kali Charan. This finding, therefore, went against the plaintiff-petitioner but the trial Court, after having examined the respondent No. 1 and witnessed her demeanour, came to the conclusion that she had re-married, which was also reflected in the extract of the Family Register of the village where she was shown to be married to one Budhraj, and as such the respondent No. 1 had extinguished her rights to succeed to the holdings Kali Charan.

5. The respondent No. 1, Nirmala went up in appeal and the first appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court holding that the plaintiff had not been able to prove the re-marriage of Nirmala on the basis of the evidence available and, therefore, Nirmala being the widow of Kali Charan was entitled to succeed under the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The petitioner-plaintiff preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue that was dismissed affirming the order of the first appellate Court dismissing the suit. Hence this petition.

6. I have heard Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the vendees of the opposite party No. 1, Nirmala.

7. Sri R.C. Singh submits that the trial Court in its judgment dated 6th April, 1991 held that the respondent No. 1 failed to dislodge the evidence of re-marriage that was led on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had proved the re-marriage with the help of a newspaper dated 20th July, 1989, namely, “Dainik Nav Karmyug”. This was supplemented by the extract of Family Register of village Qazitola, which indicated that Nirmala was the wife of Budhraj. This was further supplemented by the certif