JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The respondent nos.1 & 2 are the sons and the appellant nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent no. 3 the daughters of Late Binod Mondal. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said Binod Mondal, who met his demise on April 28, 2009, had executed and registered a Will dated January 28, 2009, allocating his property amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the strength of the Will, the plaintiffs initiated Revenue Case No.172 of 2009 and 299 of 2009 before the Tehsildar, Diglipur for mutation of the property. Accordingly, the land was mutated vide orders dated December 18, 2009 in RC No.230 of 2009, and vide order dated December 21, 2009 in RC No.172 of 2009 as well as RC No.229 of 2009.

2. Subsequently, the defendant nos. 1 and 2/appellants filed their objection to the mutation on January 06, 2010 and January 27, 2010 seeking a review of the order of mutation. The Tehsildar, upon hearing the parties, passed an order dated May 03, 2010 cancelling the earlier mutation by reviewing his earlier order and directing the property to be mutated in the joint names of all the legal heirs of Binod Mondal.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents, accordingly, instituted a suit bearing Title Suit No.5 of 2012 seeking a declaration that the purported Will dated January 28, 2009 is valid, a declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs in the land and for cancellation of the mutation order dated May 03, 2010.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on contest, declaring that all the legal heirs of the deceased Binod Mondal are equally entitled to get shares of the scheduled land. The Tehsildar, Diglipur was directed to partition the land by metes and bounds (if not already done) on the prayer of the parties equally amongst the co-sharers without disturbing present possession of the land by each shareholder as far as practicable after expiry of the appeal period.

5. Being thus aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal on contest, thereby setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. While doing so, the Appellate Court declared that the registered Will dated January 28, 2009 executed by late Binod Mondal is valid and executed in a fit state of mind and further declared that the plaintiffs have a right, title and interest over the share of the landed property as per the registered Will dated January 28, 2009. The Appellate Court further granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the order dated May 03, 2010 passed by the Tehsildar, Diglipur and directed the Tehsildar to cancel the mutation order dated May 03, 2010 and pass mutation order as per the registered Will dated January 28, 2010.

6. Being thus aggrieved by the Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been preferred.

7. By an order dated July 21, 2022, the present second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the judgment and decree of reversal of the Appellate Court below is substantially bad in law when core issue involved in the case about due execution of the will in terms of Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act which remained undecided in the impugned judgment although Trial Court held the purported will was not duly executed in terms of Section 68 of Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act in terms of oral and documentary evidence on record.

2. Whether the judgment and decree of reversal as regards setting aside mutation order passed by Tehsildar is substantially bad in law when a civil suit itself, as regards praying for setting aside mutation order passed by Tehsildar in terms of section 34(1) of Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulation 1966 read with Rule 135 of Regulation 1968, is barred under section 204, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Land Revenue and Land Reforms Regulations 1966 read wit