The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the due execution of a will as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the attestation process under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.

Heard Sri Umesh Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Shree Prakash Singh and Sri Girish Chand Sinha, for the contesting respondent-4.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement officer, Consolidation dated 21.08.1995, allowing the appeal filed by respondent-4 and directing that her name be also mutated over the land of Mohan as his daughter along with two other daughters and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 30.6.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioners, against the aforesaid order, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khatas 381 and 382 of village Kishunpur Kabiraha, pargana Surhurpur, district Faizabad (now Ambedkar Nagar), which were recorded in the name of Mohan and khata 99, which was recorded in the names of Gyan Das alias Chitaru and Mohan. At the time of partal, it has been informed that Mohan was dead and left behind him three daughters, namely, Smt. Dulari, Smt. Sarjoo Dei and Smt. Prabhu Dei (respondent-4) and they were his heirs. Smt. Sarjoo Dei and Smt. Dulari (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection under Section 9A of the Act, for recording their names as heirs of Mohan on the basis of will deed dated 24.10.1979 executed by him. Smt. Prabhu Dei filed an objection for recording names of three daughter as an heirs of Mohan. The matter was contested between the parties and they adduced their evidence. Smt. Dulari and Smt. Sarjoo Dei were examined and they also examined Dukhchhor, who is one of the contesting witness of the will dated 24.10.1979. On behalf of the contesting respondent Gyandas alias Chitaru was examined, who was power of attorney holder of Smt. Prabhu Dei, and the witness Dhaneshar was examined. Both the parties filed documentary evidence also in support of their cases. The Consolidation officer, after hearing the parties by order dated 23.02.1993 held that the execution of the will was proved by Dukhchhor, the attesting witness of the will. As Mohan had executed the will in favour of two daughters only as such Smt. Prabhu Dei has not inherited the property of Mohan. On these findings, the objection of Smt. Dulari and Smt. Sarjoo Dei was allowed the objection of Smt. Prabhu Dei was dismissed.

4. Smt. Prabhu Dei, respondent-4, filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.4136/1300) from the aforesaid order of the Consolidation officer. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement officer Consolidation who by the impugned order dated 21.08.1995 held that no reason has been given by the propounder of the will to disinherit Smt. Prabhu Dei, who is third daughter of Mohan, as such the will dated 24.10.1979 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and propounder has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances. On this finding, he ignored the will dated 24.10.1979 and directed for recording the names of all the three daughters of Mohan over the land in dispute. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No.341/239/232/14) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by the Additional Collector(Finance and Revenue), who by order dated 30.06.2014 found that Dukhchhor, the attesting witness could not prove due execution of the will as such no reliance can be placed on it. The other attesting witness of the will, namely, Mohabi and scribe of the will were not produced. In such circumstances due execution of the will was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and order of Assistant Settlement officer, Consolidation did not suffer from any illegality. On this finding the revision was dismissed by the order dated 30.6.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that will dated 24.10.1979 is a registered document and so long as it is not cancelled by the civil court, the consolidation authorities have no right to ignore the will as held by th