- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri H. O. K. Srivastava, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this petition and Sri Agnihotri, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) AS the pleadings are complete, writ petition is of the year 1996, as requested by both sides after hearing the arguments this Court is to decide the writ petition finally. The judgment of the Board of Revenue is under challenge in this petition by which two appeals filed by the respondent side has been allowed and the suit filed by the petitioner side has been dismissed and that of the respondent side has been allowed. For disposal of the writ petition the facts in brief will suffice.
(3.) A suit was filed by the petitioner under section 176 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act claiming half share through registered Will executed by Narain dated 4. 1. 1968. Suit was initially decreed. It is at this stage the respondent side filed a suit under section 229-B claiming their own rights on the basis of another Will which is said to have been executed by the same person i. e. Narain. After evidence was led the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent side. Two appeals came to be filed by the respondent side which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court upon which two second appeals came to be filed and they were allowed, thus this writ petition. Besides various submissions on the merits Sri Srivastava submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue can be said to be faulty on the ground that powers of the Appellate Court being limited, Board of Revenue cannot be excepted to go into questions of fact and that too after reassessment of the entire evidence so as to record its independent finding on the question of fact is whether the Will in favour of the respondent was genuine or not and it is thereafter to decree/dismiss the suit straightaway arid, therefore, submissions is that judgment of the Board of Revenue is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It was then submitted that Second Appellate Court could intervene in the matter only when substantial question of law is involved and, therefore, no substantial questions of law even having been proposed in the memo and not even framed by the Appellate Court while writing the judgment, allowing of the appeal cannot be justified.;