( 1 ) PETITION in hand has been filed assailing the judgment dated 16-7-1996 passed by the Board of Revenue by which it has been held that a Scribe cannot be treated to be attesting witness unless attesting witnesses were dead or were not in a position to be examined.

( 2 ) IT would appear from the record that one Mohd. Hanif was Bhumidhar of land in suit comprising in plot No. 201, admeasuring 2 Bighas, 7 Biswas. He had three sons who are parties to the present proceedings. Mohd. Yusuf one of the sons instituted a suit under Section 229 B of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act claiming himself to be the exclusive bhumidhar of the land in question on the basis of a Will dated 13-5-1979 which it was alleged was executed by his father mohd. Hanif in his favour. In the written statement, the other two sons of Mohd. Hanif i. e. the contesting Opp. parties repudiated the plaint allegations and denied exclusive rights as Bhumidhar of the plaintiff over the property in question and claimed l/3rd share each to all the three brothers. The contesting parties also denied execution of will and termed it as forged one. The trial court by means of judgment dated 29-6-1993 dismissed the suit on the gro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document