Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This First Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Execution Case No. 10 of 1993 [Pradeep Kumar (decree holder) v. State of U.P.] by which the unregistered Will deed dated 26.5.1990 executed by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar was found to be genuine and the objection raised by the appellants was rejected.

2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows :

3. The appellants and respondent No. 1 are the real brothers and sisters. Smt. Savitri Devi was the mother of the appellants and the respondents. There were several movable and immovable properties in the Family. During the life time of Smt. Savitri Devi and her husband Srikishan, the partition Suit was filed by appellant No. 1 - Ashok Kumar against Srikishan, Smt. Savitri Devi and Pradeep Kumar. It also appears that the house properties owned by the parties at different places were the subject-matter of the partition Suit, which was decreed on 11.1.1978 on the basis of statement on oath made by the parties in the Suit proceeding. It also appears that agricultural land being khasra Nos. 29, 30 & 31 situated in village Gijhore, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, owned by Smt. Savitri Devi were not the subject-matter of the partition Suit No. 156 of 1976.

4. Agricultural land mentioned above was acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Athority (In Short ‘ NOIDA’) and Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi, who feeling aggrieved with the award, preferred Reference before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, which was decided on 24.8.1992. Smt. Savitri Devi had died during pendency of the Reference No. 74 of 1992, Pradeep Kumar was substituted in place of Smt. Savitri Devi as legal heir in the Reference proceeding. NOIDA preferred First Appeal before this Court, which was also dismissed in non-prosecution.

5. Decree holder Pradeep Kumar (respondent No. 1) filed Execution Application No. 10 of 1993 before the Executing Court. During pendency of the Execution proceeding, appellants moved an application claiming themselves also the legal heirs alongwith respondent No. 1 to be substituted in the execution proceeding. An impleadment application had also been filed by the appellants in the First Appeal No. 585 of 1995 filed by the NOIDA and the application for impleadment has been allowed vide order dated 24.7.1997. The operative portion of the said order is as follows :

“Pradeep Kumar claims that he is the sole legal representative of Smt. Savitri Devi because she has executed a Will in his favour. Admittedly the Will is unregistered and unprobated.

The impleadment application filed by Ashok Kumar, Smt. Meena Sharma and Smt. Saroj Sharma is therefore allowed.”

6. Again an application had been moved seeking clarification regarding an apportionment of the amount between the legal heirs deposited by the Authority.

7. This Court vide order dated 28.11.1997 passed the following order :

“4. By order dated 24th July, 1997, this Court simply allowed the impleadment application without saying anything about the apportionment of the amount amongst the several legal heirs of Smt. Savitri Devi. Therefore no clarification is required from this Court. 10th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad should decide the matter after recording evidence produced by the parties regarding the genuineness and validity of the Will and the competence of Smt. Savitri Devi to execute the Will.

5. With these observations, the application for clarification is disposed of”.

8. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.1997 passed by this Court, the Court below recorded the evidence of the parties and vide impugned order dated 22.5.1998 found the Will executed by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar genuine and legal one. It also appears from the perusal of the record that before executing the