IMPORTANT POINT
Mutation proceedings are summary in nature and do not decide substantive rights, thus a writ petition is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8 and Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 9 to 13.

2. The dispute involved in the resent case is with regard to the two will deeds purportedly made by one Dharamraji. One of the will deed which is unregistered was made in favour of respondent nos. 4 to 8 who are the sons of the sisters of Dharamraji, while on the other hand another will is said to have been executed on 19.07.1994, which is registered in favour of petitioner alongwith respondent nos. 9 to 13, all of whom are daughters of Dharamraji.

3. The dispute in the present case pertains to the date of death of Dharamraji. According to the petitioner Dharamraji is said to have died on 30.09.1994, but date of her death was wrongly recorded by the Registrar of Birth and Death as 30.06.1994. Smt. Sanwari Devi - petitioner has moved an application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act before the Tehsildar for mutation of the property bequeathed by Dharamraji in favour of petitioner and her sisters namely respondent nos. 9 to 13. In the said proceedings objections were filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 to 8 who also produced a will executed by Dharamraji on 28.05.1994, stating that Dharamraji had executed the said will in their favour while contesting the application of the petitioner stating that on the face of it the said will has been executed 19 days after death of Dharamraji and consequently registered document cannot be believed.

4. Before the competent authority, under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act no appearance was made by Dharamraji after filing the registered will and after recording statement of one of the witness of the said will. The statement of the attesting witness was duly recorded but no cross examination was made thereafter. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that proceedings before the competent authority proceeded ex-parte. The application was moved on behalf of petitioner for recall of the ex- parte order which was allowed on 02.01.1997 and despite the said application being allowed, no appearance was made on behalf of petitioner- applicants and again orders were passed for proceeding ex-parte on 26.05.1997, 21.02.1998 and 31.03.1998 and the application was rejected by order dated 31.03.1998.

5. Against the order of rejection of application, petitioner had moved an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kadipur, Sultanpur. It is before the appellate authority that all the documents were filed by the petitioner who was staking claim over the property of Dharamraji on the basis of registered will dated 19.07.1994.

6. Before the appellate authority it was submitted that on noticing the defect/infirmity in the date of death of Dharamraji, an application was moved which has been allowed by means of order dated 13.08.1998 and the date of death of Dharamraji in the Register of Birth and Death has now been recorded as 13.08.1998 and consequently, it is submitted that there is no infirmity in the will which is registered in favour of petitioner on 11.07.1994.

7. The appellate authority while considering the submissions made on behalf of petitioner rejected the contention, observing that correction was not validly and legally made with regard to date of death of Dharamraji. The appellate authority was of the considered view that correction, if any, in the Register of Birth and Death could have been made only pursuant to approval of a First Class Magistrate and same could not be done by the Registrar on his own accord. While returning such finding the appellate authority has relied upon Section 13 of the U.P. Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. He further held that the petitioner by her own conduct had failed to adduce any evidence and did not prosecute the matter before t