- (1.) Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 relates to the agricultural holding of Late Jalil Ahmad. The respondent No. 4 and husband of the petitioner undisputedly were real brothers. The respondent No. 4 claimed succession on the basis of a registered will said to have been executed by Jalil Ahmad on 9.6.2000. Jalil Ahmad died on 1.8.2000.
(2.) The petitioner claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of Jalil Ahmad and she continued, as such, till the death of Jalil Ahmad and was, therefore, entitled to succeed to his holding. Two daughters had been born out of the said wed-lock, who were married during the life time of Jalil Ahmad. She also asserted that she has not remarried and, therefore, there was no occasion for Jalil Ahmad to have executed a will in favour of respondent No. 4 only, to the exclusion of the natural heirs including the petitioner.
(3.) The matter was contested and the respondent No. 4 produced the attesting witnesses of the will. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.6.2010 proceeded to record clear findings with regard to proving of the will and the surrounding circumstances and held that respondent No. 4 was entitled to get his name recorded against the holding of Late Jalil Ahmad. The claim of succession by the petitioner No. 1 in terms of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was rejected. An appeal was filed against the same by the petitioner, which was dismissed upholding the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also has dismissed the same upholding the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has also recorded his findings holding that the petitioner has lost of her rights to succeed to the holding of Late Jalil Ahmad.;