https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280895 Section 48 revisional power under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act permits scrutiny of correctness, legality, propriety and regularity, but not de novo reappreciation of evidence like an appellate court. Interference is justified only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, or vitiated by procedural irregularity; here, the revisional authority merely substituted its own factual view without identifying such defects, so the High Court's quashing of that order was upheld. On the evidence, the disputed khatas were treated as joint Hindu family property held for the benefit of the family, and the findings of co-sharership were sustained. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2019 17:32:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280895 Section 48 revisional power under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act permits scrutiny of correctness, legality, propriety and regularity, but not de novo reappreciation of evidence like an appellate court. Interference is justified only where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, contrary to law, or vitiated by procedural irregularity; here, the revisional authority merely substituted its own factual view without identifying such defects, so the High Court's quashing of that order was upheld. On the evidence, the disputed khatas were treated as joint Hindu family property held for the benefit of the family, and the findings of co-sharership were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280895