Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R.N. Gupta, alongwith Mr. Ram Kumar Singh, learned Counsels for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 and Mr. Ravi Nath Tilhari alongwith Mr. Manoj Sahu, learned Counsels for the opposite party No. 3.
(2.) The land in question numbered as Khata Nos. 30, 31, 32,148, 197, 104 and 198, situate at Village Mawaiya, Pargana Suryapur, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki was recorded in favour of one, Shri Keshav Ram Tiwari, who died on 4.6.2001. Claiming their rights over the land in question, on the basis of Will deed, the petitioners as well as the opposite party No. 3 filed applications under section 34 of the U.P Land Revenue Act for mutation of their names in place of Shri Keshav Ram Tiwari (deceased). The petitioners claimed their right on the basis of unregistered Will deed dated 1st June, 2001 on the ground that the deceased was their uncle and before he died he executed the Will deed in their favour, whereas the respondent No. 3 claims his right on the basis of registered Will deed dated 26.8.1992, on the ground that during his life time Mr. Tiwari (the deceased) was residing with him and he rendered all the services to the deceased during his life time to his satisfaction. Since Mr. Tiwari was fully satisfied with his services he bequeathed the property in his favour. Both the applications were heard together by the opposite party No. 2 i.e. Naib Tehsildar, Suryapur, Tehsil Ram Sanehi Ghat, district Barabanki and were decided by a common order dated 11th June, 2002. After dealing with the evidences adduced before him he allowed the application of the respondent No. 3 and rejected the application submitted by the petitioners and issued direction to record the land in the name of respondent No. 3, on the basis of registered Will deed dated 26th August, 1992, executed in his favour by Mr. Keshav Ram Tiwari.
(3.) Being aggrieved with which, the petitioners filed revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue through its order dated 21.12.2006 rejected the petitioners' revision and upheld the order passed by the Court below. Both the orders passed by the Courts below are under challenge before this Court through the instant writ petition, mainly on the ground that the respondent No. 3 did not produce the original Will deed before the Courts below. Further, the evidence produced by the petitioners in support of unregistered Will deed has not been considered by the Courts below. Further, the photocopy of the Will deed is not admissible in evidence, as such the Will deed cannot be proved without any other secondary evidence.;