The High Court can interfere with findings of fact recorded by lower courts under Article 226 of the Constitution if the findings are recorded by erroneous application of principles of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

S. R. Misra, J.

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 22-1-1985 and that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31-112-1985 allowing the appeal of the respondent no. 3 and dismissing the revision upholding the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation).

2. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh at some length in support of the writ petition and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, appearing for the respondent no. 3

The dispute giving rise to the present writ petition is as to who is legal heir of Bhola, a tenure holder having 2 khatas, one in village Chhattari of Khatauni no. 150 and the other of village Kharkhendi of khatauni no. 176. Pedegree which is admitted between the parties is given below :- Ghasi _________|__________________ | | Shiv Charan Bhola Chand __________|____________________ | | | Aman Singh Bhagwat Ciaman Singh

3. It is admitted that on the death of Bhola, the name of Khem Chand was entered in the revenue papers in a proceeding under section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and objection under section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent no. 3 Aman Singh alleging that Bhola died on 12-3-1977 and he left a will in his favour, so the revenue entries be corrected, incorporating his name. Khem Chand the real brother and heir of Bhola executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners contested the objection of the respondent no. 3 and alleged that will in question is fraudulent and fictitious and various other objections were raised which will be dealt with later on.

4. Consolidation Officer held that the will is suspicious document and in support of his finding he recorded a number of reason for discarding and disbelieving the validity of the will. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 11-9-1981, respondent no, 3 filed an appeal and the appellate court by its order dated 22-1-1985 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. There were two cases which were registered before the Consolidation Officer bearing case nos. 700 and 701. As such two appeals were filled and both the appeals as stated were allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) two revisions were filed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 31-12-1985 dismissed both the revisions and hence this writ petition.

According to the petitioners, Khem Chand sold the plot to Jai Karan and others for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter Jai Karan and others are in actual physical possession. The sole question which requires decision and consideration is whether Bhola executed a will in favour of Aman Singh, respondent no. 3 and whether will has been proved.

5. Sri R. N. Singh appearing for the petitioners has urged that the finding of the Consolidation Officer and the reasons mentioned therein for discarding the will have neither been reversed by the appellate court nor by revisional court : the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has made out a new case for respondent no. 3 that even if the will is not proved the intention of Bhola was for a oral will can be inferred i there are surreptitious circumstances which have not been looked into by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation; burden has wrongly been placed on the petitioners; nomination in insurance policy by the deceased is not a decisive factor and no inference can be drawn for upholding the validity of the will on account of nomination; the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has not recorded any finding after considering the oral evidence or any other evidence that the will has been proved; a perusal of the wording of the will shows that it was drafted by some professional; it has been fur their mentioned in the will that the will is being executed to avoid further litigation another reason mentioned in the will for execution of the same