The validity of a Will requires attestation by witnesses; applications for expert opinions on signatures are premature until proper evidence is presented.

JUDGMENT :

ALOK MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Shri Vijai Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and no one has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to Khata No. 125 situated at Gram Mohanpur, Pargana Dewa, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Barabanki, which was recorded in the name of Shyam Narayan @ Makka Lal and afer the death of Shyam Narayan the land came to be recorded in the name of his wife Badki. It is stated that Badki, wife of Shyam Narayan had executed a Will in favour of Avadh Bihari, Ram Het, Kishan Bihari, Brij Bihari sons of Deo Bux as well as the petitioner- Smt. Madhuri Devi.

3. It has been submitted that with regard to the succession of the said land proceedings under 9-A (2) are still pending before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner has all along assailed the validity of the Will executed by Badki on 13.2.1981. Initially the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 9848 of 1989, which was dismissed by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 28.03.1990. For the sake of convenience the order passed by this Court is quoted herein below:-

" This petition arises from mutation proceedings. It appears that on the death of Smt. Barabanki mutation proceedings have started. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of Smt. Barabanki and has sought mutation of her name on the basis of succession. Opposite parties 4 to 7 have claimed mutation on the basis of will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Barabanki. The will set up by opposite parties 4 to 4 is not admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner's case appears to be that the alleged will is a forged document. The petitioner made an application before the Additional Tahsildar, Nawabganj, Barabanki seeking permission to bring expert evidence on record regarding the thumb impressions contained on the will filed by opposite parties 4 to 7. This application has been rejected by the Additional Tehsildar with the following observations-

"there is no provision for experts opinion."

Against the order of Additional Tahsildar, the applicant preferred revision before the Collector who rejected the same by order dated 19.7.1989. The Board of Revenue has also rejected the petitioner's revision through order dated 7.10.1989. In paragraph 4 of its order the Board of Revenue has observed that mutation proceedings are of fiscal and summary nature and are subject to decision in a regular suit. With this observation of the Board of Revenue no exception can be taken. However, I am not inclined to interfere at this stage because the petition arises from an interlocutory order. If opposite parties 4 to 7 fail to substantiate the will petitioner will have no cause for grievance against the impugned orders.

In view of the above the petition is dismissed."

4. It has been submitted that the writ petition was dismissed by this Court observing that only application of the petitioner for obtaining expert opinion with regard to the thumb impression of the testator was rejected which was an interlocutory order and therefore considering that the matter was still pending consideration before the revisional authority, this Court has declined to interfere in the matter.

5. It has been been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid dispute regarding the validity of the Will has been raised by the petitioner by filing suit under Section 229 B, which also stood abated on commencement of the consolidation proceedings. Subseq