JUDGMENT

S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The dispute relates to Khata No. 170 and 172 of village Shahpur Tappa Bank, Pargana and Tehsil Utraula, District Gonda. Khata No. 170 was recorded in the basic year in the names of Raja Bux Singh and his two brothers, Bhagwati Singh and Deep Narain Singh, who are opposite parties 3 and 4 in this petition. Khata No. 172 was recorded in the name of Raja Bux Singh alone. Raja Bux Singh died on 10574 after 'Partal' of the village. The petitioner filed objections under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (briefly called the 'Act') claiming sirdari rights to the extent of l/3rd share in Khata No. 170 and sole sirdari rights in Khata No. 172 in her capacity as the widow of Raja Bux Singh. The claim of the petitioner was resisted by opposite parties 3 and 4 who alleged that the petitioner was not the widow of Raja Bux Singh. They, on the contrary, claimed that they were entitled to succeed Raja Bux Singh in their capacity as his real brothers.

3. The case was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order dated 30675. He dismissed the claim of Bhagwati Singh and Deep Narain Singh (opposite parties 3 and 4) with the findings that the petitioner was the widow of Raja Bux Singh and she was entitled to be mutated in Khata No. 170 to the extent of l/3rd share. The opposite parties 3 and 4 then filed an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his judgment and order dated 26276 (Annexure No. 6). The revision which was thereafter filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20977 vide Annexure 7.

4. The petitioner has now filed the present petition.

5. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner, in support of her claim that she was the widow of Raja Bux Singh, had filed a large number of documents including certified copies of electoral rolls for the year 1965, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1973, relating to village Shahpur Tappa Bank, certificate dated 2375 of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha concerned and land revenue receipts. The petitioner also examined herself as a witness and produced Devi Bux Singh (uncle of Raja Bux Singh and opposite parties 3 and 4). There was thus unimpeachable documentary and oral evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner was the widow of Raja Bux Singh but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director have misread the evidence and have come to n erroneous conclusion, it is also stated that the document purporting to be an extract of Kutumb Register which was filed by the opposite parties 3 and 4 was inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director were not justified in placing reliance on that document.

6. The opposite parties 3 and 4 have contested the petition. They have filed counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner was the widow of one Mahadeo Singh and not of Raja Bux Singh. It is also stated that Inder Singh was her son. The opposite parties 3 and 4 have filed a large number of documents before the consolidation authorities to indicate that Inder Singh was the son of Mahadeo Smgh and the petitioner was his mother. It is stated that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not the widow of Raja Bux Singh. This finding being finding of fact, cannot be assailed or challenged in the writ petition. They have disputed the assertion of the petitioner that certain documents filed by them were inadmissible in evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the finding of fact recorded by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director are perverse and, therefore, it is open to the petitioner to challenge those findings even in a writ petition. He has a