Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The dispute relates to Khata Nos. 38 and 193 situate in village Muda Dih, Tappa Deoria, Pargana Salempur Majhauli, district Deoria. The said village was brought under the consolidation operation by issuing notification dated 12th July, 1973 published in U.P. Gazette. In the basic year, land in dispute was jointly recorded in the name of the petitioners and their predecessors in interest. A small pedigree has been given in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which is not in dispute. Sehati and Bandhoo Ss/o Neoor were two brothers. The petitioners are from the branch of Sehati. Bandhoo had one son namely, Algoo, who was married with Aftee. Aftee had died in the year 1959 living behind, according to the petitioners, no male or female issue. Therefore, after death of Aftee the property in dispute came to be recorded in the name of Sehati in pursuance of mutation order dated 15th December, 1959. The names of the petitioners continued to be recorded in the revenue record since then and was so recorded in the basic year when the village was notified for consolidation operation. Smt. Gulabi, respondent No. 3 herein filed objection before the consolidation Court claiming herself daughter of Aftee and thus claimed co-tenancy over disputed khatas. The petitioners contested the claim on the pleas inter alia that she is not daughter of Aftee but she is daughter of one Sita of village Bahorpur. She has been set up by Bhola and Basdev Singh who are enimical terms with the petitioners for a long time.

2. The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. Consolidation Officer by the order dated 18th October, 1975 rejected the objection filed by Smt. Gulabi. The matter was carried in appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who allowed the appeal by the order dated 28th August, 1976. The said order has been confirmed in further revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 1st October, 1981. Challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 28th August, 1976 and 1st October, 1981, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. During pendency of the revision, the original record of the case was misplaced and it could not be traced out. Consequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered for reconstruction of the record. Record has been reconstructed and there is a dispute between the parties with regard to the correctness of the copies of the statement of Jhagroo, one filed by the petitioners and another filed by contesting respondent No. 3. However, this matter shall be dealt with at an appropriate stage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no tangible evidence on record to show that Smt. Gulabi is daughter of Aftee. He submits that consolidation Court wrongly placed the burden upon the petitioners to prove that Smt. Gulabi is not daughter of Aftee. The basic year entries were in favour of the petitioners, it was for Smt. Gulabi to prove her case by cogent and reliable evidence which she failed to do so. The mutation was ordered in favour of the petitioners after death of Aftee on 15th December, 1959 but no such objection, if any, at any stage was ever put forward by Smt. Gulabi. The relationship of Smt. Gulabi with Aftee could be established within the parameters of Section 50 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. The Courts below have committed illegality on placing reliance upon non admissible evidence ignoring the material facts of the case. In short, there is no tangible evidence to establish that Smt. Gulabi is daughter of Aftee.

5. Shri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, contended that in view of judgment of this Court in Bhurey v. Pir Bux and others, 1973 ALJ 312, any consent or admission made in mutation proceedings has no relevance in regular title proceedings. It was further contended that mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and reg