Hon’ble D. K. Arora, J.—Heard Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri H.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the District Registrar/ Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), district Raebareli in Vad Sankhya 1/2009; Smt. Ramraj Devi v. Up-Nibandhak, Tiloi and others, under Section 72 (1) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to enforce the Will at anywhere and restrain the Registrar of Raebareli not to register any sale deed, transfer deed, mortgage deed or any other document which relates to the Will.

3. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that late Sri Jagannath Prasad Srivastava died leaving behind four sons, namely, (1) late Sri Lalta Prasad, (2) late Sri Mangali Prasad, (3) late Sri Narmada Prasad and (4) late Sri Jamuna Prasad. Late Sri Lalta Prasad is having two sons, namely, Sri Hausala Prasad and Sri Krishna Kumar. Late Sri Mangali Prasad had no issue, late Sri Narmada Prasad was unmarried and late Sri Jamuna Prasad is having three sons, namely, S/Sri Ram Chander, Shiv Kumar and Suresh Chandra Srivastava.

4. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that one Smt. Ramraj Devi w/o late Sri Manohar Lal Srivastava presented a Will for registration. The alleged Will was prepared by Smt. Shiv Pati w/o late Sri Mangali Prasad on 6.3.2009 for registration. The Registrar published a notice in Dainik Jagaran Hindi Daily Newspaper on 24.3.2009 for inviting objection. The petitioners, on publication of notice in Newspaper, got knowledge about the alleged Will. Accordingly, the petitioners moved an objection before the Sub-Registrar opposing the registration of the Will stating therein that the petitioners are the only legal heirs of late Smt. Shiv Pati, being real aunt of the petitioners and they were having good relation with her. Late Smt. Shiv Pati also acknowledged the petitioners as her legal heirs after death of her husband at various places and departments, she nominated the petitioners as her nominees and also gave assurance to the petitioners that after her death, the petitioners would be her successor and legal heirs and they will become the owner of her property. It is also submitted that opposite party No. 2 has no relation with Smt. Shiv Pati.

5. The opposite party No. 2 filed reply to the objections of the petitioners and the learned Sub-Registrar, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case passed an order on 27.6.2009 in which he reached the conclusion that the present Will is fictitious and not fit for registration and accordingly registration of Will was refused.

6. The opposite party No. 2 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2009 preferred an appeal under Section 72 (1) of the Act. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 9.11.2009. The petitioners feeling aggrieved against the order dated 9.11.2009, have preferred the present writ petition alleging therein that the opposite party No. 1 has not considered the arguments and objections, raised by the petitioners and created a new story, which was not in the pleadings.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners approached the Police Authorities for lodging an F.I.R. and on their refusal the petitioners moved an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate and the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12.11.2009 directed the Police Authorities to lodge the F.I.R.

8. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the alleged Will was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar after the death of Smt. Shiv Pati Devi and some person purchased two non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.50/- in some other name for the purposes of af