The main legal point established in the judgment is that the SDO Court is not the proper forum to decide the question of the genuineness of the will, and the power of the Board of Revenue to review its orders.

K.S. Rathore, J.-Plaintiff respondents No. 3 to 6 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant petitioners in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer-I Jaipur. In the suit for declaration the averment made on behalf of the respondents is that one Mahadev son of Jagan Nath was the sole Khatedar tenant of the lands comprised in Khasra Nos. 120, 121 122, 125, 126, 127, 129 155 and 156 in all measuring 40 bigha 7 biswa and he was the khatedar tenant of 1/4th share in the lands comprised in khasra No. 128, 130, and 131 measuring 2 bihgas.

2. The controversy arose between the parties when the alleged will executed by Mahadev regarding his property on 26.08.1969 in favour of Narain son of Fatta to deprive his adopted son Bheru of his property. Mahadev died on 10.01.1975.

3. In this present writ petition the main challenge is to the Judgment passed by the SDO Dated 30.08.2000 (Annexure-3) and the Board of Revenue dated 29.06.2001 (Annexure-6). The SDO, Jaipur has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner by which the petitioner asked to examine the document in question by the Finger Print Expert whether thumb impression of the executor is forged or genuine. Since the SDO rejected the application vide its order dated 30.08.2000 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue and the revision petition was allowed with the observation that there is nothing wrong if an expert opinion is taken about the thumb impression contained in the original Vasiyatnama and it should be done from an independent expert preferably a Government agency thus the SDO was directed to obtain the finger print or thumb impression examined by the Expert and obtain opinion on the will executed by Mahadev and with these observations, the revision petition was accepted. Against the order dated 23.03.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision, the respondents moved review application before the Board of Revenue which is decided vide Judgment dated 29.06.2001 and while allowing the review petition, the Board of Revenue observed that "on re-thinking, I find that the Vasiyatnama can be substantiated by the witnesses who were present there, therefore, opinion of the finger print expert may confuse the issue and hence on re-thinking, I am setting aside the order dated 23.03.2001 as I see an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged this review order and requests that the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 23.03.2001 in revision be restored and that of 29.06.2001 passed in review petition be quashed and set aside as the scope of review is very limited.

5. After referring Section 229 of the Tenancy Act and the order 47 Rule 1 of CPC he further submits that to arrive at the conclusion it is necessary to obtain finger print expert opinion. In support of his submissions he placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by Honble the Supreme Court in the case Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambhai, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095. In these cases, Honble the supreme Court has observed that "Error apparent on face of record"- Means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinion".

6. Mr. Mehrishi further distinguished the Judgment referred by the respondents in the case A.R. Antylay vs R.S. Nayak, reported in 1988 (2) SCC 261 and submits that the ratio decided in this case is not applicable to the instant case.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the SDO has rightly observed that the will was said to be executed in favour of Narain in presence of two attesting witnesses namely Nathu and Mirdha and issue in question can be decided by the SDO and the petitioner is at liberty to lead the evidence before the SDO to this effect also.

8.