Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—This matter was taken up in the revision of list.

2. Heard Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned advocate in support of this petition. No body appears for the respondents.

3. Challenge is to the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, appellate authority and that of the Consolidation Officer by which claim of petitioner to the land in dispute has been rejected.

4. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act which is in respect to adjudication of dispute of title/right between the parties.

5. The question involved in this petition is that although properties in dispute are neither mentioned in the body of the will nor in the schedule but other properties are mentioned in the body and schedule of the document, then whether non-mentioned properties in the document has to pass on the claimant/petitioner or not ?

6. On brief narration of facts, about which there may not be any dispute, the petition can be conveniently disposed of.

7. In the basic year record, Laxmi Narain Srivastava and others were recorded. We are concerned with the property which is said to have been left by Luxmi Narain Srivastava. Petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act claiming land in dispute on the ground that there is registered will in his favour dated 27.2.1970 and on that basis, he is entitled to succeed the land in dispute besides other properties which are mentioned in the schedule of the will. Claim of petitioner was resisted by respondents on the ground that firstly, execution of the will by deceased, is not an act with sane mind rather he was not in a fit mental status to execute the will. It was then claimed that by will in question, as the land in dispute is not mentioned therein, petitioner is not to succeed rather respondents being natural heirs of the deceased, they are to succeed. Copy of the will was filed. Witnesses were examined from both sides. Consolidation Officer rejected the petitioner’s objection and that was approved by the appellate authority and the revisional Court and thus to challenge concurrent findings recorded by all three Courts, this petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

8. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although in the will which the basis of claim, property in dispute is not specifically mentioned either in the body of will or in the schedule, but at certain places executor of will has stated the petitioner to be heir and he is to receive all movable and immovable property belonging to him and therefore, will has to be accepted to include the land in dispute even not so specifically mentioned in the body of will or in the schedule of the will. Argument is that there is no pleading by respondents that disputed property being not included in the schedule, petitioner will not get the same. It was then submitted that will is not transferred rather it is to change the order of succession and therefore, as the executor has mentioned that he has brought the petitioner with him and has taken his care, he is to be the heir. In the last, it was again submitted that in the middle of the document, there is a mention about succession to the petitioner of all his properties, land in dispute is to treated to be included therein. In support of the submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Section 88 of the Succession Act besides two decisions, which are said to be on the point. Reference is given to the decision of N. Kasturi v. D. Ponnammal, AIR 1961 SC 1302; 1966 RD 174.

9. In view of aforesaid, this Court has to decide the claim of parties.

10. There is no dispute about the fact that it is a case where property claimed to be bequeathed by will is not mentioned in the document. It is not a case that after mention of the fact that I bequeathe my all movable and immovable property, things are silent in respect to the detail of property. Rather, it is a case where in spite of mention of the fact noted above, executor has mentioned in the s