AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.N. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
(2.) THE petitioners claim succession to the holding of late Chhedi Lal on the basis of an unregistered will. They further deny the blood relationship of the respondent no.2 and urge that she is not the real sister of late Chhedi Lal. The matter was contested before the Consolidation Officer, who on the basis of the evidence led before him, believed the will set up by the petitioners and rejected the claim of the respondent no.2. Aggrieved, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was dismissed by him vide order dated 7th August, 2002. Against which the respondent no.2 preferred a revision which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation holding that on the basis of the evidence on record, the respondent no.2 is the sister of late Chhedi Lal and secondly, the will set up by the petitioners will not be presumed to have been proved as the attesting witnesses had not signed both the pages of the will. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation particularly on the issue of attestation of the will, is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and has been recorded without reversing the finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer. His further submission is that the Consolidation Officer had clearly recorded that the two attesting witnesses had proved the will and if the said finding has not been reversed then merely because of the fact that the pages do not bear the signatures of the attesting witnesses, cannot be said to be sufficient to disbelieve the will.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondent no.2, Sri Mishra submits that the attesting witnesses are interested witnesses and the relatives of the petitioners, and this will was practically forged to nonsuit the claim of the answering respondent and was never executed by late Chhedi Lal. He further submits that so far as the status of the answering respondent being that of the sister of late Chhedi Lal is concerned, the same stands established by virtue of the evidence that was led in the shape of the Succession Certificate dated 6h March, 1993 as also the declaration in the G.P.F. account of late Chhedi Lal, who was an employee of the Basic Shiksha Parishad. He, therefore, submits that the answering respondent being the sister of late Chedi Lal was entitled to inherit the holding and that the petitioners had set up a forged will, which has been disbelieved by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, hence, the impugned order does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;