Section 57(c) of the India Succession Act, 1925, which requires attestation of wills, does not operate retrospectively and can only apply to wills executed on or after 1-4-1951, the date on which the Act was extended to the Part B States.

1. 1. This writ petition by Smt. Kesar Bai widow of Mishrilal directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1.2.1966 reviewing its earlier order dated 23.2.1962, as also its subsequent order dated 29.2.1968, raises the question whether or not the India Succession Act, 1925 (which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act) or any corresponding law requiring attestation of wills, was in force in the erstwhile princely State of Bundi.

2. The petitioner's husband Mishrilal was a recorded Khatedar tenant of 70 bighas and 7 biswas of land situate in village Heerapur in the former State of Bundi. It is alleged that be left a will bequeathing the estate to his sister's son Mudulal, the respondent No. 3. The original will is not forthcoming and, therefore the exact date of its execution is not known. But there is on record a certified copy of the statement of DW/6 Hukamchand Sharma, recorded in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bundi showing that the alleged will, exhibit D/2, was registered on 2.5.1946. Mishrilal died on 8-10-1950 i.e., after the merger of the Bundi State. On the strength of the will, he got his name mutated as the Khatedar. The mutation proceedings were contested by the petitioner, who is the widow of Mishrilal, right up to the Board of Revenue, but with no avail.

3. Thereafter, she brought the present suit-for possession under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, claiming to be entitled to the lands as being the rightful heir alleging that the said will was not genuine besides being legally invalid for want of attestation and. therefore, it did not create any right or title in favour of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner, therefore, prioed that she be declared to be the Khatedar tenant of the suit lands and the respondent No. 3 Modulal be evicted therefrom. The respondent No. 3 contested the suit on the ground that he was not a trespasser, but his possession was referable to a lawful title derived by virtue of the will executed by Mishrilal in his favour. He alleged that the petitioner was living in adultery with another person and, then fore, Mishrilal had disinherited her.

4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bundi, upheld the claim of the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the will and dismissed the suit and his decision was affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Kota. On further appeal, the Beard of Revenue by its order dated 23.2.1962 decreed the suit of the petitioner. It held that the will cannot be taken as proved, as there was no proof of its attestation. In the absence of such proof, it held that the very basis of respondent No. 3 Modulal's title fails. There was no contention raised before the Board of Revenue that at the relevant time, the Act was not in force in the Bundi State. The respondent No. 3 filed an application for review before the Board of Revenue and the Board by its order dated 1.2.66 set aside (he earlier order on the ground that the Act could not. apply to the former Bundi State, stating:

"The Indian Succession Act does not apply to the Bundi State as it found no place in the report of the Administration of the Bundi State in the year 1946-47 where the list of all the Central Acts applied to the Bundi State is given."
The appeal of the petitioner was re-heard and the Board, by its order dated 29.2.1968, dismissed the same holding that (1) the will was not invalid for want of its attestation, and (2) there was no warrant for interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the will was genuine.

5. Shri Dutt, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of the Board of Revenue firstly on the ground that the order dated 1.2.1966 reviewing the earlier order dated 23.2.1962 was beyond the scope of review. But this contention is without substance, because if the Act was not applicable to the erstwhile State of Bundi, then there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order of the Board dated 23.2.1962, whic