ORDER

K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Kshetriya Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi dated 31-5-1972 whereby the revision petition filed by the contesting opposite party No. 4 Ram Lakshman Pandey was allowed. The relationship between the contesting parties would be evident from the following pedigree :-(For Pedigree see next page)

2. The petitioners had filed an objection under Section 9-A sub-clause (2) of U. P. C. H. Act basing their claim on a registered will dated 6-5-1965 executed by their grand-father Harbansh Pandey in respect of 11 Bighas, 12 Biswas and 15 Dhoors. The claim of the petitioners was accepted by the Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 28-7-1971. Aggrieved by the decision of the Consolidation Officer the contesting opposite party Ram Lakshman Pandey had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 12-11-1971. Thereafter the contesting opposite party had preferred a revision petition which was allowed through the impugned judgment dated 31-5-1972 of the revisional court. The petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court have come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. In the basic year Harbansh Pandey was recorded over the disputed land. It appears that Munnanji Pandey father of the present petitioners had set up a will and had denied the claim of the contesting opposite party No. 4 Rain Lakshman Pandey. Similarly the petitioners had set up another will in their favour denying the claim of the contesting opposite party No. 4 Ram Lakshman Pandey as well as the claim of their father Munnanji Pandey, who is opposite party No. 45 in the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has patently erred in not accepting the will executed by Harbansh Pandey in favour of the petitioners. According' to him the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not drawn presumption in favour of the genuineness of the document relied upon by the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also contended that in view of Sections 40, 41 and 60 of the Indian Registration Act, the document should have been accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has arbitrarily ignored the will in favour of the petitioners, hence the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are perverse and should be quashed. He has also contended that a heavy burden lay upon the contesting opposite party to show that the will was not executed in accordance with law when the will relied upon by the petitioners is a registered document.

5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. According to him the Deputy Director of Consolidation has appraised the evidence on record and has not relied upon the statements of the attesting witnesses examined by the petitioners to prove the will. In such circumstances the will relied upon by the petitioners has not been proved in accordance with law and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was fully justified in not relying upon the will set up by the petitioners and has rightly come to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioners based on the will has not been substantiated. He has further submitted that per pedigree the Deputy Director of Consolidation has determined the shares of the parties which works out substantial justice between the parties, hence the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.

6. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has expressed himself in the following words: -

"Is prakar ke gawah se yes asha nahi ki ja sakti hai ki woh kisi dastawej ko swayam parhe ya kisi dusrey vyakti ke dwara parhe janey par usey samajh sakey: