ARUN BHANSALI, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.11.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby, the second appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 — Smt. Champa Devi has been allowed and the order dtd. 22.11.1995 passed by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner has been set aside.

2. The petitioner is the grandson of Balu Ram and respondent No. 2 — Smt. Champa Devi and respondent No. 3 — Smt. Bhikhi Devi are daughters of Shri Balu Ram. The present dispute pertains to the legacy of said Balu Ram. It is submitted that Balu Ram executed a registered Will dated 20/5/1987, whereby, the property held by him was bequeathed to Smt. Hulasi Devi, his wife, and two daughters Smt. Champa Devi and Bhikhi Devi.

3. Whereafter, another Will dated 29/6/1989 was executed bequeathing the property to his wife and two daughters. It is claimed that another Will dated 18/2/1991 was executed by Balu Ram and this time he bequeathed the property in favour petitioner — Bhanwar Lal, his grandson and four days after executing the Will dated 18/2/1991, on 22/2/1991 Balu Ram died. Whereafter, Smt. Bhikhi Devi filed an application for mutation of the agricultural land in favour of legal representatives of deceased Balu Ram; Bhanwar Lal also filed an application based on the Will in his favour and also produced certain agreements executed by the deceased Balu Ram and Smt. Hulasi Devi w/o Balu Ram indicating Bhanwar Lal as their successor. Notices of the application were issued and after all the parties made their representation, relying on several documents, Wills and so called agreements, the Tehsildar by his order dated 3/4/1993 came to the conclusion that as the Will dated 20/5/1987 was registered, the same was valid and ordered that the mutation proceedings be carried out based on the said Will.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner. The Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by his order dated 22/11/1995 came to the conclusion that the property was ancestral, several Wills were placed on record and in a fiscal proceedings like mutation as to which Will was valid could not be decided and the said aspect can only be decided based on probate and, therefore, accepting the appeal filed by the petitioner Bhanwar Lal, the order dated 3/4/1993 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside and the matter was remanded to Tehsildar, Sujangarh to record the land in favour of all the legal representatives of deceased Balu Ram.

5. Feeling aggrieved, Smt. Champa Devi daughter of Balu Ram filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 11/11/1997 came to the conclusion that it is not necessary to obtain a probate in Rajasthan, no evidence was available on record to indicate that the property was ancestral, the documents relied on by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner could not be relied on for coming to the conclusion that the property was ancestral, it was nobody's case before the Tehsildar that property was ancestral and as the Will dated 20/5/1987 was a registered Will and was found as valid by the Tehsildar, there was no perversity in the said order so as to require interference by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner and consequently the second appeal was allowed and order passed by the Addl. Divisional Commissioner was set aside and the order passed by the Tehsildar was restored.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue which arises in the present case is as to whether the ancestral property could be bequeathed by way of Will by any person and the beneficiary under the Will would acquire any right from such a document and whether in a mutation proceedings, the Tehsildar can decide the competing claims of the parties based on the Will. It was fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for grant of probate