Hon’ble Mahendra Dayal, J.—Both the aforesaid first appeals from order have been filed against the same Judgment and order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No. 512 of 1995 whereby the Letter of Administration in respect of the Will dated 2.1.1995 executed by Late Smt. Maiki, was issued to the respondent Ram Naresh Singh. The controversy involved in both the appeals is simillar, therefore, both the appeals are being decided together by a common judgment.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Late Smt. Maiki, widow of Chheda was the owner and bhumidhar of the land in dispute. It is an admitted fact between the parties that she was issue less and her husband Chheda had predeceased her. The application for grant of Letter of Administration under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act was filed by the respondent Ram Naresh Singh with the averments that Smt. Maiki executed a Will of her movable and immovable propterty including the agricultural land in his favour of Ram Naresh Singh. It was also said that Sita Ram and Rama had signed the Will as attesting witnesses. Smt. Maiki died on 5.1.1995. When the application for grant of Letter of Administration was filed by Ram Naresh Singh, the Court examined both the attesting witnesses and after satisfying itself that the Will was a genuine document, decided the case in favour of Ram Naresh Singh by the order dated 6.1.1997 and Letter of Administration was issued in favour of Ram Naresh Singh. After about four months, the appellant Chhotey Lal filed an application for revocation of Letter of Administration as well as for recall of the order dated 6.1.1997. The appellant in F.A.F.O.No. 86 of 2016, namely, Master and Jangali also applied for revocation of the Letter of Administration. According to them, a registered Will was executed by Smt. Maiki in their favour on 1.2.1988. The father of the appellant in F.A.F.O.No. 86 of 2016, namely, Nattha also filed an application for the same relief but subsequently the same was withdrawn.

3. The learned Court below by its order dated 16.11.2013 allowed both the applications for revocation of Letter of Administration and recalled the order dated 6.1.1997. The Miscellaneous Case No. 512 of 1999 was restored for decision afresh. An appeal was preferred before this Court by Ram Naresh Singh against the order dated 16.11.2013, but the same was dismissed with direction to the Court below to conclude the proceedings within six months. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal, Ram Naresh Singh preferred special appeal also before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 3.12.2014 as not maintainable.

4. After the case was reopened, one set of objection was filed by Chhotey Lal, Master and Jangali who are appellants in F.A.F.O.No. 1097 of 2015. The second set of objection was filed by Molhey Prasad, Raja Ram and Rajesh Prasad who are appellants in F.A.F.O.No. 86 of 2016. Chhotey Lal claimed interest on the basis of a Will, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Maiki, whereas Master and Jangali claimed their right on the strength of a Will dated 1.2.1988 allegedly executed by Smt. Maiki. The second set of objection was filed and the objectors in which their claimed their interest in the property in question, on the basis of succession.

5. The respondent Ram Naresh Singh who had prayed for issuance of Letter of Administration, produced four witnesses including himself. The other witnesses were Mewal Lal Yadav, Shatrughan and Smt. Meera Singh. The appellants of F.A.F.O.No. 86 of 2016 produced as many as eight witnesses. The appellant of F.A.F.O.No. 1097 of 2015 produced Chhotey Lal, Master and O.P.Gupta as their witnesses.

6. The learned Court below after evaluation of documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent Ram Naresh Singh had succeeded to prove due execution of Will dated 2.1.1995 beyond doubt and accor