Bhattarcharya, J. - (1.)By this writ application, two of the children of one Lakhi Kanto Saojal have come up before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Tehsildar by which the said Tehsildar has recorded the name of the private respondent No. 3 in place of the deceased Lakhi Kanto Saojal on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by the said recorded owner.
(2.)There is no dispute that Lakhi Kanto Saojal (since deceased) is the recorded owner of the disputed property. There is also no dispute that the said Lakhi Kanto Saojal died leaving several children including the petitioners and private respondents as also his two wives.
(3.)On the death of the said person, the private respondent No. 3 on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by his father applied before the Tehsildar for mutating only his name in place of the deceased. But the Tehsildar rejected such prayer on the ground that the said Will was not probated.
;