JUDGMENT K. Kishore, Member - These are six connected Revisions under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, against the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, dated August 28, 1979, confirming the order dated March 31, 1971, passed by the S.D.O., Bikapur, in a Mutation case. 2. Briefly stated after the death of Smt. Suraj Kunwar, the following four sets of claimants claimed her property in dispute. (1) Bhawani Prasad Singh claimed legal heirship in place in Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar as being her daughter's son. (2) Kanhaiya Bux Singh son of Shamsher Singh claimed the property of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar as being the sister's son of Haushila Bux Singh, the husband of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar. (3) Suraj Bhan Singh son of Shardar Bux Singh claimed the property of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar as being her adopted son. (4) Kanhaiya Bux Singh son of Sheo Gulam Singh also claimed the property of Smt. Suraj Kunwar on the basis of a 'will' executed by Haushila Bux Singh, the husband of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar on April 8, 1928. 3. The pleading of Bhawani Prasad Singh (1st set) was disbelieved by the lower court on the ground that the Statement of Bhawani Prasad Singh was found to be false and fictitious. 4. The theory of Kanhaiay Bux Singh son of Shamsher Singh (2nd set) who claimed mutation being the sister's son of Haushila Bux Singh was disbelieved on the main ground that he admitted the 'will' dated April 8, 1928 having been executed by Haushila Bux Singh. His case was thus decided against him. 5. Suraj Bhan Singh claimed mutation on the basis of adoption held on October 23, 1966. The adoption was also disbelieved on the ground that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar executed a Gift Deed on May 9, 1967 which showed that she had no son. 6. Kanhaiaya Bux Singh, son of Sheo Gulam Singh succeeded in proving the 'will' in question; therefore, mutation was allowed in his favour. Being aggrieved by this order of S.D.O. dated March 31, 1971 Kanhaiya Bux Singh, son of Shamsher Singh (2nd set) and Suraj Bhan Singh (3rd set) went up in revision to the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, who upheld the order of the S.D.O. and dismissed the revision. Now, Suraj Bhan Singh alone has filed the present six revisions against the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division. 7. Now, Suraj Bhan Singh alone has filed the present six revisions against the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division. 7. A substitution application has been moved on February 1, 1980, stating that Kanhaiya Bux Singh son of Shamsher Singh, Opp. party No. 2 has died leaving behind him Smt. Premraji his daughter to be substituted in his place as his legal heir and representative. The substitution is allowed as prayed for. 8. The learned counsel for the Revisionist argued that the original recorded tenure holder was Haushila Bux Singh. He died on May 23, 1929. Thereafter, the land in dispute was mutated in favour of his widow Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar. Haushila Bux Singh is supposed to have executed a will dated April 8, 1928 during his lifetime, wherein in he desired that after his death his wife Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar would continue to enjoy full benefits of his property and after her death, it would devolve on Kanhaiya Bux Singh S/o Sheo Gulam Singh who, it was desired, will look after Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar during her life time. This was an unregistered will. The learned counsel pleaded that the Will was a Farzi and fraudulent document. This plea had been raised before the trial court also whereupon it had sent the document to the finger-print expert for opinion and verification. In spite of several remainders, the original document had not been returned and the opinion of the expert was even now not forthcoming. A certified copy of the will was admittedly on file, but in the absence of the original document, and the opinion of the expert, it could not become the final basis of the adjudication. The learned counsels also stated that according to the Will, only life interest had been given to Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar. She had not been given the latitude to alienate part or whole of the property by Gift Deed or otherwise; and that the property had to be managed by Kanhaiya Bux Singh. With the promulgation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on July 1, 1952 the situation changed. Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar became Bhumidhar of the disputed property on that date and acquired transferable rights. She exercised her transferable rights on November 6, 1967 by transferring a part of the land to Shaym Singh and others the legatee's sons. With the promulgation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on July 1, 1952 the situation changed. Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar became Bhumidhar of the disputed property on that date and acquired transferable rights. She exercised her transferable rights on November 6, 1967 by transferring a part of the land to Shaym Singh and others the legatee's sons. Even at the State the Will did not come to surface and the transfer was not contested. The courts below had thrown out the theory of adoption. The learned counsels contended that the courts below had acted with material irregularity in placing reliance on the judgements of the S.D.O., Commissioner and the Board in an ejectment suit on an issue substitution where the theory of adoption had been discarded. The view of the learned counsel was that the aforesaid proceedings were under Order XXII in a case under Section 202 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and a finding on adoption given therein was not the last word on this crucial issue and the courts below should have applied their mind on the evidence produced before them. In this connection the learned counsel cited 1973 R.D. page 364. Lastly the learned counsel pressed that if the Will had not been properly proved, as it had not been, the O.P. had no locus standi as they did not come within the cycle of succession prescribed in Sections 171-175 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 9. The learned counsels for the O.P. argued that after the promulgation of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Will dated April 8, 1928 executed by Haushial Bux Singh was not killed. It only bestowed enlarged powers on Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar, the widow of the testator, which she duly exercised by gifting away a part of the property to Shyam Singh and others. 10. The learned counsels urged that the Will was not a fraudulent document. One marginal witness had appeared before the trial court before the original document was referred to expert for his opinion. The requirements of Section 68 Indian Evidence Act read with Section 169 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were thus property fulfilled. 11. The Will was an ancient document, executed in 1928. The directions contained in the Will had been honoured throughout. The requirements of Section 68 Indian Evidence Act read with Section 169 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were thus property fulfilled. 11. The Will was an ancient document, executed in 1928. The directions contained in the Will had been honoured throughout. The name of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar was entered as a recorded tenure holder when, at that point of time, a widow was not entitled to succeed to the property of her deceased husband. The learned counsels made a pointed reference to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act which embodied a legal presumption that the document was genuine. 12. Regarding the so called adoption, relevant experts from the learned Commissioner's order were referred to. He had examined the evidence in depth and detail and come to the conclusion that no adoption had even taken place. 13. The Gift Deed executed by Smt. Surja Nath Kunwar was later than the date of adoption as alleged by the Revisionist. Had she adopted Suraj Bhan the revisionist, she would have stated in the Gift Deed in favour of Shyam Singh and others that she had neither a son nor a daughter. 14. The lower courts had placed legitimate reliance on the verdict delivered by the S.D.O., Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in the matter of succession wherein the theory of adoption had been delivered. 15. The learned counsels for the O.P. contended that the Revisionist's claim that the Will being a fraudulent and unreliable document, the property on the Gaon Sabha was untenable. This was not an automatic process. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha had put in appearance before the trial court on a few dates and then disappeared. There is no provisions in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act wherein the land can be settled with the Gaon Sabha in the line of succession. It was imperative under Section 194 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, on the part of the Gaon Sabha to bring in a suit. This exercise had not taken place. The present proceedings started in 1970; 10 years had elapsed during which the revisionist had ample time to knock out the Will in a competent court. This attempt had also not been made. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and seen the record of the case. 17. This exercise had not taken place. The present proceedings started in 1970; 10 years had elapsed during which the revisionist had ample time to knock out the Will in a competent court. This attempt had also not been made. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and seen the record of the case. 17. I have come across several cases where 'Wills' have been assailed. They have been decried as spurious documents and mutation based thereon a dubious proposition. Even when Wills have been duly proved according to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, mala fides have been attached to the testator and the contents of the Will attached. As a last resort a plea is invariably made that the document be sent to an Expert for verification of thumb impression, or signature of the testator. Sometimes, this plea is accepted with no results as in this case. A reference to an Expert means delay of years in the final disposal of the proceedings which is by no means the purpose and intention of fiscal and summary proceedings on other occasions the plea for reference to an Expert is rejected which is constructed to be a material irregularity at the revisional level. 18. A Will is a solemn document. If it is genuine, its implementation should not be marred. If on the other hand, doubts about its authenticity become visible, the document should never be accepted but valid reasons must be given for not accepting the document. There is in my view no overwhelming need for a reference to an Exert; objective and explicit yardsticks have been laid down for testing the authenticity of a Will. In this connection I would refer to A.I.R. 1977 (S.C.) page 74, specially para 10 therefore in which their Lordships of Supreme Court have referred to A.I.R. 1973 S.C. page 443. I would reproduce the principles enunciated therein:- "1. Started generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of satisfaction of the mind in Such matters. As in the case of the proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of Wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Started generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of satisfaction of the mind in Such matters. As in the case of the proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of Wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a Will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subjected to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. 3. Unlike other documents, the Will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the Will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document pronounced is proved to be the last Will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the Will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and just disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the Will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the Will bears the signature of the testator or was in sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when Will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicions circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the Will excite the suspicion of the Court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. It is in connection with Wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicions circumstances that the best of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument procedure before the court is the last Will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicions circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the Will has been validly executed by the testator. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may arise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." If a Will conforms to the principles stated above, it would be held to be a genuine document; if it does not, it would have to be rejected. No reference to an Expert is imperative. I would in this connection refer to Section 45, Indian Evidence act which pertains to opinions of Experts. This provision of Law renders the opinion of an expert relevant; it does not command that, if a party wants document to be referred to an Expert for opinion, such prayer must be peremptorily accepted. In the matter of judging the varacity of a Will, objective principles have been prescribed. If they are applied conscientiously, the validity or otherwise of the document would be duly exposed. In summary proceedings, where matters have to be concluded expeditiously, any attempt to prolong litigation must be halted. If a document is referred to an Expert, he generally takes a long time to give his opinion. Secondly, his opinion is not the last word. The other party would then be entitled to produce another Expert. In summary proceedings, where matters have to be concluded expeditiously, any attempt to prolong litigation must be halted. If a document is referred to an Expert, he generally takes a long time to give his opinion. Secondly, his opinion is not the last word. The other party would then be entitled to produce another Expert. In the battle of Experts, the summary proceedings would become a casualty. I would held that in summary proceedings reference to an Expert, which is not mandatory under the Law should be avoided. 19. In the instant case. Haushila Bux Singh executed a Will on April 8, 1928 in which he bequeathed his entire property to Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar his wife, with the proviso, that she will have only life interest in the property without the right to transfer. He further laid down that on the death of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar, the entire property would devolve on Kanhaiya Bux Singh, who was a cousin brother of the testator with the provision that it would be his responsibility to look after the mother, sister,nephews and also send yearly gifts according to custom to them. The testator further desired that Kanhaiya Bux Sigh shall perform the last rites of the testator and his wife on their demise. One attesting witness happened to be alive when these proceedings commenced. His testimony was recorded and the Will was duly proved as required under Section 63 Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. After the Will had been so proved the Revisionist made a prayer before the trial court that the Will should be referred to an Expert which was unfortunately done with no results so far. The reference thus has become an exercise in a futility specially so when the Revisionist had failed to break the testimony of the attesting witness. 20. The propounder has property discharged the onus which lay upon him of proving the essential ingredients of the Will. In the first instance, the testator desired that his property should devolve on his wife Mst. Suraj Nath Kunwar and only later on the propounder. The testator could not have foreseen that his wife would survive him by nearly 40 years, or whether Kanhaiya Bux Singh would outlast Mst. Suraj Nath Kunwar. In the first instance, the testator desired that his property should devolve on his wife Mst. Suraj Nath Kunwar and only later on the propounder. The testator could not have foreseen that his wife would survive him by nearly 40 years, or whether Kanhaiya Bux Singh would outlast Mst. Suraj Nath Kunwar. The last wishes of the testator as embodied in the Will have been duly implemented in that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar duly succeeded to the property of the testator. There is no allegation at all that, between the deaths of the testator and his wife, Kanhaiya Bux Singh made any effort to subvert the wishes of the testator as embodied in the Will. There is no allegation that at the time of execution of the Will testator's signatures were shaky or he suffered from feeble mind or he resorted to unfair and unjust disposition of the property. Form the Will it also appears that the propounder did not take a leading part in making the Will. For nearly 40 years after the testator's death, his wife enjoyed sovereignty over the property of Haushila Bux Sigh and this fact alone excludes any suspicion about the propounder exercising an unholy influence upon the mind of the testator at the time of execution of the Will. The caveator has alleged that the documents itself is supporting this allegation has not been proved. In this context the conduct of the Revisionist has to be closely examined. Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar inherited the property from her husband in pursuance of the Will and exercised total control thereon for nearly 40 years. If the Will was fraudulent, Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar's succession to the property of her husband was also fraudulent and the caveator, in proper conscience should have attacked the document during Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar's life time. He did nothing of the kind and this omission itself proves that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar's succession to the property of her husband in pursuance of the Will executed by the latter was never questioned by the caveator or anybody else, during her life time. He did nothing of the kind and this omission itself proves that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar's succession to the property of her husband in pursuance of the Will executed by the latter was never questioned by the caveator or anybody else, during her life time. If the Will was a valid document for purpose of Smt. Suraj Kunwar's succession to her husband's property, it is an equally valid document for the succession of Kanhiya Bux Singh, after the demise of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar, wife of the testator, both the successions being governed by the same document. I would further hold that, where a Will governs more than one succession, and no question are raised about the validity of the document at the time of first succession, such question raised at the time of subsequent succession would lack good faith. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the Will executed by Haushila Bux Singh is a valid document and the allegation that it is a spurious document has been raised too late and has not been proved. 21. There does exist a deflection in the operation of the contents of the Will. The testator specifically prescribed that, after his death, his wife would have only life interest in the property without any transferable rights. It is on record that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar alienated a part of the property to Shyam Singh and others by way of Gift Deed. This Gift Deed was executed on April 8, 1965, long after the promulgation of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act under which Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar had become a Bhumidhar, acquiring transferable rights. Kanhiya Bux Singh could have blocked the transfer by objecting to the Gift Deed and filing objections. He did not do so, which only enhances his bona fides, without damaging the validity of the Will. 22. Wills which have a long span would expectedly encounter substantive and substantial changes in the land laws. When Haushila Bux Singh executed the Will in 1928 bequeathing his property to his wife, widows were not entitled to succeed to the property of their husbands under the Laws then operating. Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar could only succeed to the property of her husband on the basis of the Will which was not contested at that time. When Haushila Bux Singh executed the Will in 1928 bequeathing his property to his wife, widows were not entitled to succeed to the property of their husbands under the Laws then operating. Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar could only succeed to the property of her husband on the basis of the Will which was not contested at that time. The provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act conferred transferable rights on Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar. I would hold that Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar's succession to the property was governed by the Will. Her conversion into Bhumidhar under the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was merely a continuance of her previous status. There is no provision in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that any Will executed prior to the promulgation of the said Act would become infructuous thereafter. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not effect the Will in the instant case one way or the other and the testator's bequest in favour of Kanhiaya Bux Singh after the death of Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar remains unimpaired. 23. The theory of adoption set up by the Revisionist does not hold good. I am in complete agreement with the analysis of this question in para 10 of order dated August 28, 1979 of the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division. The argument that, had Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar adopted the revisionist, she would not have stated in the Gift Deed executed subsequently in favour of Shyam Singh and others that she had neither a soon nor daughter holds. The Revisionist have thus no locus standi in this case. They have failed to prove the Will is a fake document. The revisionist has also utterly failed to establish that he was adopted by Smt. Suraj Nath Kunwar at any appointed time. 24. The Revision fails, Mutation shall be made in favour of Kanhaiya Bux Singh over the disputed land on the basis of the Will. 25. This order governs Revision Nos. 191 to 196 L.R. of 1978-79 District Faizabad.