JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated July 16, 1971 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Appeal No. 816 of 1971 arising out of Suit No. 120 of 1967 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The appellant, Bhullur had filed a suit seeking declaration of his Bhumidhari rights in certain plots on the ground of being the brother and heir of the original tenure-holder Sahabdin. Srimati Dhanpati, respondent No. 1 contested the suit on the ground that she was herself the daughter of Sahabdin who had executed a will in her favour. The trial court held that Bhullur was a co-Bhumidhar of the land in suit alongwith Srimati Dhanpati, and dismissed the suit. This order has also been upheld by the lower appellate court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the will dated April 2, 1965 has not been proved under the law and is not admissible in evidence, that it being an unregistered document was highly suspicious and cannot be relied upon, that there was nothing to show that the will was executed out of free mind and without any undue influence and coercion, that the attestation of the signatures of the testator has not been proved by the marginal witnesses of the deed, and that no probate having been obtained in respect of the alleged will, it was inadmissible in evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the decision in Mayurbhanj State Bank v. Bhabatosh Das, AIR 1961 Orissa 178, in which the following observations have been made: "The next question is whether the document which is sought to be enforced as a mortgage transaction has been proved to have been attested by two witnesses as required under Section 59, T.P. Act. We will first refer to the definition of 'attestation' contained in Section 3 of the Transfer of property Act: "'attested' in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, of has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 5. In the present case, there is on record as unregistered will executed by Sahabdin in favour of her daughter Srimati Dhanpati dated April 2, 1965. This will has been panned by the scribe Hanuman Prasad Pandey, and bears the thumb-impression of Sahabdin Pasi, the signatures of two attesting witnesses Sahabdin Misra and Chhedi Prasad Misra and the thumb-impression of a third attesting witness Bhagauti. On these, Sahabdin Misra has appeared as a witness and has proved the will. 6. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides as follows: "63 Execution of unprivileged wills - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition of engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules: (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator, a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 7. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a person should be of sound mind and should not be a minor for disposing of his property by will. Section 61 provides that a will or any part of a will the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such importunity as takes away the free agency of the testator, is void. 8. Now, it is the common case of both the parties that the deceased Sahabdin had no sons but he had a brother, the plaintiff-appellant Bhullur, and two daughters, the younger one being Srimati Dhanpati, defendant-respondent. The will in question has been duly proved in accordance with law. The plaintiff-appellant has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that Sahabdin was not of sound mind at the time of making the will or that there was any fraud or undue influence brought upon him. On the other hand, it is quite natural that he should make a will of his property in favour of his younger daughter who, according to the will and also the oral evidence on record, in fact lived with him and looked after him. The will was thus a legal document and admissible in evidence, and the courts below have not committed any error in law in relying upon the same. 9. The will was thus a legal document and admissible in evidence, and the courts below have not committed any error in law in relying upon the same. 9. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of revenue court in mutation case cannot be considered in deciding the question of title between the parties, and the courts below have erred in relying upon the same. The record shows that in the mutation case, which was contested between Bhullur and Srimati Dhanpati, the Additional Collector (Judicial), Sultanpur, by his order dated February 9, 1966, had ordered that the mutation be made in favour of Srimati Dhanpati with respect to the half share of Sahabdin in his Bhumidhari Khata and Bhullur may be recorded as co-Bhumidhar. The correct legal position is that the order in the mutation case is not binding and does not act as resjudicata in a declaratory suit, but it certainly constitutes relevant admissible evidence and the Court has to duly consider such evidence alongwith other evidence. Thus, the courts below have not committed any error in law in considering this evidence in favour of the defendant-respondent. 10. From the perusal of the entire record, I am satisfied that the findings of the courts below are based on a proper consideration of the entire evidence and are sound in law. There is no force in this second appeal, which is hereby dismissed.