IMPORTANT POINT
Litigants must substantiate their claims with credible evidence, particularly when relying on unregistered wills, and must approach the court with full disclosure and honesty to avoid the consequences of abusing the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar, J.) :

1. Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has filed a short counter affidavit bringing on record the copies of the sale deed and the memo of revision filed by the petitioners, which is taken on record.

2. The learned counsels for the parties state that it would not be necessary to file the detailed counter affidavit or the rejoinder affidavit and the matter may be heard finally, at this stage.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also filed a certified copy of the memo of revision preferred by the petitioners under Section 219 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act, 1901) against the order of the Tehsildar dated 21.01.2013, the same is taken on record.

4. Heard Shri Anurag Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9.

5. Present petition has been preferred with the following main reliefs:-

"i) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2024 passed by the opposite party no.1 in Second Appeal No.56 of 2015 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition;

ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Second, Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow i.e, opposite party no.2 in Appeal No.C20141000002607, judgment and order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Rae-bareli i.e. opposite party no.5 in Case No.233, judgment and order dated 11.3.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow i.e. opposite party no.3 in Revision No.582/2012-13 as well as judgment and order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the Tehsildar Sadar, Rae-bareli ie, opposite party no.5 in Case No.746 which are contained in Annexure-10, 8, 5 & 3 respectively to the writ petition;

iii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties no.1 to 6 not to implement the impugned judgment and orders as contained in Annexure-14,10, 8, 5 & 3 respectively to the writ petition;"

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the nephew of late Ram Gopal alias Gopal, petitioner no. 2 is the wife of nephew of late Ram Gopal and petitioner no. 3 is son of petitioner no. 2.

7. It is further submitted that the dispute in the present case is with regard to Plot Nos. 242/0.5369, 245M/0.0060, 261M/0.039, 262M/0.0080 and 5/0.264 situated at Village Kisunpur Ram Chandar, Pargana & Tehsil Sadar, District Rae Bareli.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioners belong to the same family which the late Ram Gopal belonged. Dispute is with regard to the property belonging to the late Ram Gopal. For convenience, the pedigree is quoted hereinbelow:-

9. It is further submitted that petitioners had come to know about the unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003 executed by late Ram Gopal in favour of Gurudeen, Santosh Kumar and Ayodhya Prasad. After the demise of Ayodhya Prasad, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 being the wife and son of late Ayodhya Prasad respectively step into the shoes of late Ayodhya Prasad.

10. After getting the copy of unregistered Will dated 25.07.2003, the petitioners moved an application before the Tehsildar under Section 34 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as, the Code, 2006) for mutation of their names in the revenue records in place of late Ram Gopal. The application preferred by the petitioners was rejected by the Tehsildar by order dated 21.01.2013. Against the said order, petitioners had preferred a revision which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 11.03.2014. Assailing the said order, petitioners had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10446 (M/B) of 20