Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard Sri H.M.B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for third, fourth and fifth respondents.

2. Petitioners are assailing the order dated 6 March 2013 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly (D.D.C.), whereby, the order of the Consolidation Officer (C.O.) and that of the appellate authority, Settlement Officer Consolidation (S.O.C.) has been reversed, thus, accepting the claim set up by the private respondents in respect of the disputed property. As a consequence, it has been directed that the name of the petitioners be expunged and that of the private respondents be entered in the revenue record.

The facts, briefly stated, is that Pooranlal and Radhey Shyam were co-owners each having half share in the property. Both, real brothers inherited the property from their father Netram. Petitioners are legal heirs of Radhey Shyam, whereas, the third respondent is the real sister of Radhey Shyam and Pooran Lal, and, the fourth and fifth respondents are the sons of the third respondent. Pooran Lal being issue-less, therefore, the third respondent was staying with him alongwith her sons and looking after him.

2. On 28 September 1984, Pooran Lal executed a registered Will in favour of the sons of his sister (contesting respondents). Pooran Lal died in 1990, thereafter, dispute arose between the petitioners and the private respondents, for the reason that Radhey Shyam, got his name entered in the revenue record for the share of Pooran Lal. Aggrieved, the private respondents filed objections under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Act), before the C.O.; petitioners entered appearance and contested.

3. The private respondents set up their claim on the strength of the registered Will, whereas, the petitioners set up their claim on the basis of an unregistered will alleged to have been executed by Pooran Lal on 26 April 1988. Before the C.O., both the sale-deeds, were brought on record. Fourth respondent appeared as a witness, evidence of the deed writer and Banwarilal, a villager, deposed on behalf of the private respondents. Evidence was led on behalf of the petitioners, however, the learned C.O. rejected the objection of the private respondents and accepted the unregistered will. Aggrieved, a restoration application was filed as the C.O. had proceeded ex parte which was rejected. Thereafter, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the S.O.C. which was rejected. Finally, the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed by the impugned order reversing the order and judgment of the subordinate authorities.

4. The dispute between the parties primarily centered around, as to whether, the registered Will executed by Pooran Lal was duly proved by the propounder. The revisional authority, in the impugned order, upon considering the evidence, material and documents available on record and on hearing the parties noted that the C.O. misread the evidence to reject the registered Will. To prove the Will, the deed writer was examined, since the attesting witnesses had died.

5. This fact was not disputed by the petitioner; in their objection before the revisional authority they merely stated that the date of death of the attesting witness was not disclosed or mentioned by the contesting respondents. It is not being disputed that the attestator and the attesting witnesses belong to the same village, therefore, they being not alive was not disputed categorically. The Will was proved as secondary evidence by examining the deed writer, who accepted the execution of the Will, further, stated that the Will was written on the direction of Pooran Lal, thereafter, it was read out to Pooran Lal, who first appended his signature thereon, followed by the attesting witnesses. The execution of the deed was duly accepted in the cross-exami