Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M. K. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nawal Kishore for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.

2. The relevant facts of the case as emerging from the pleadings of the parties are that the respondent No. 4, Smt. Shanti Devi filed Suit No. 46 of 2006 under Section 229 B of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, 1950 before the respondent No. 3 against the petitioner claiming co-tenancy rights to the extent of half share in Plot No. 151, area 2.3460 hectare situate in village-Almaspur, district and Tehsil-Muzaffarnagar (hereinafter referred to as the disputed plot) alleging that the plot in dispute was recorded in the name of Samay Singh who died on 15.12.1980 leaving behind the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner as his heirs. Although after the death of Samay Singh the plot in dispute was liable to be recorded in the names of the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner jointly but taking advantage of the absence of the respondent No. 4 from the village, as she was residing elsewhere with her husband, the petitioner, her step sister whom she trusted, illegally got the disputed plot recorded in her name on the strength of a registered will deed dated 15.1.1981 allegedly executed by her father, Samay Singh in her favour pursuant to the order dated 18.12.1983 passed by the Tehsildar in Mutation Case No. 73 of 1983. The aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the respondent No. 4 in the year 2005 and when the petitioner refused to acknowledge the respondent No. 4 as the co-tenure holder of the disputed plot, the respondent No. 4 filed the suit for declaration of her rights. In the plaint the respondent No. 4 had categorically alleged that the will deed dated 15.1.1981 was a forged and fabricated document as the same was neither signed by Samay Singh nor it bore his thumb impression. The petitioner filed written statement vehemently opposing the claim of respondent No. 4 denying the allegations made in the plaint regarding the will executed by Samay Singh in her favour. The other pleas regarding the suit being barred by Section 80 of the C. P. C. and Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were also raised. The respondent No. 3 after considering the pleadings of the parties and the entire evidence on record decreed the suit filed by the respondent No. 4 vide his judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006. Aggrieved therefrom the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur which was registered as Appeal No. 23/2006-07 and transferred for disposal before the respondent No. 2 and dismissed by him by his judgment dated 25.8.2007.

3. The petitioner challenged the judgments and decrees dated 25.8.2007 and 23.12.2006 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively by filing a Second Appeal before the respondent No. 1 which was registered as Second Appeal No. 36 of 2006-07 and dismissed by respondent No. 1 by the judgment and decree dated 6.8.2008.

4. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 23.12.2006, 25.8.2007 and 6.8.2008 passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively.

5. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 that the registered will deed executed by Samay Singh bequeathing his entire interest in the disputed plot in favour of the petitioner to the exclusion of respondent No. 4 was invalid are erroneous and the reasons given by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 in their respective judgments in support of the aforesaid findings are wholly misconceived.

6. Sri Rajvanshi next submitted that Section 34 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act enjoins every person obtaining possession of any