AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Mir Sayed, who has filed his Vakalatnama and Caveat on behalf of the respondent No.2. Learned Standing Counsel has been heard for the respondent No.1.
(2.) AFTER the learned counsel for the parties were heard, they pray that no further Affidavits are required to be filed and the matter be disposed of finally on the grounds that have been raised by the petitioners relating to the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue. This is a dispute relating to succession and a consequential mutation proceeding under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The Tehsildar, while passing the order at the first instance, found that the petitioners, who had set up an unregistered Will, had failed to prove the same. The order of the Tehsildar categorically records that the second page of the Will was on a plain paper whereas the first page of the Will was of Rs. 5/ - Stamp paper. It was unregistered and the second page of the Will did not contain the signature of the executor. An appeal was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed similarly affirming the said findings.
(3.) THE matter went up in revision before the Commissioner which was allowed and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration on a specific finding having been recorded in the order of the Commissioner dated 5.4.2010 to the effect that the trial and the appellate court have completely overlooked the basic evidence on record, namely the second page of the Will, which does contain the signatures of the executor. Thus, non -consideration of relevant material and perversity in the finding recorded was recited in the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner for remanding the matter back to be tried again.;