We have heard Mr. Sen' on behalf of the appellants and· Mr. Goyal ·on behalf of the respondents and are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The question with which we are concerned is whether the appellants are joint tenants in khata No. 150 along with the respondents. In this respect we find that the Settlement Officer .examined the entries in the revenue records. It was found that so far as the land in dispute is concerned, it was held in Fasli 1280 hy Hriday Singh, who was the common ancestor of the parties. In 1307 Fasli, Himmat Singh, an ancestor of the appellants and Suraj Mall, an ancestor of the respondents, jointly held tha~ land. Subsequent to that, the land in dispute was held exclusively by the respondents and their ancestors. The Settlement Officer inferred from these circumstances that subsequent to 1307 Fasli, there was some partition between the parties· or some othe~ arrangement similar to partition, as a result of which the land in dispute fell to the share of the respondents. As this finding of the Settlement Officer is essentially a finding of fact :and was arrived at after consideration of the relevant entries in the revenue records, the same cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. · It may be that some other view, and what according to Mr. Sen was a better view, could have been arrived at on the facts, but the position in law is clear that the High Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with a finding of fact as long as tha~ finding\ is based upon the relevant circumstances and is not shown to be perverse. We find no such infirmity in the finding arrived at by the Settlement Officer. The finding was not also interfered with when the appellants went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The High Court in the circumstances cannot be said to be in error in dismissing the writ petition in limine.
