JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. IN this writ petition the dispute is between two brothers. The contesting opposite party (opposite party no. 2) claims that his name may be recorded over the disputed property on the basis of a 'Will' executed by his father Sita Ram in his favour. On the death of aforesaid Sita Ram the petitioner had applied under Section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for mutating the names of both brothers over the property of deceased Sita Ram, whereas the contesting opposite party Udai Narain Misra had set up 'Will' executed by his father in his favour. 2. THE Consolidation Officer and the appellate authority did not accept the genuineness of the 'Will' set up by the contesting opposite party. But the revisional authority has accepted the genuineness of the 'Will' in favour of the contesting opposite party, Udai Narain Misra, as is evident from the impunged judgment dated 17-5-1980. Aggrieved by the judgment of t he revisional authority aforesaid, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the revisional authority has patently erred in accepting the 'Will' as a genuine document. He has cited a large number of rulings mentioned in paragraph no. 8 (a) of the writ petition and has contended before me that the genuineness of the 'Will' set up by the contesting opposite party could not be accepted in view of the rulings mentioned in the aforesaid para 8 (a) of the writ petition. 4. THE second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the 'Will' relied upon by the contesting opposite party was also in respect of 'Sirdari' plots, hence it was bad in law and could not be accepted as a genuine document. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was some evidence in the form of tape-recorded version, which threw doubt upon the genuineness of the 'Will' relied upon by the revisional authority while recognising the claim of contesting opposite party. But the same was not taken into account by the Consolidation authorities. 5. THE fourth contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional authority has wrongly observed that the signature of Sita Ram over 'Will' in question was not denied. 6. But the same was not taken into account by the Consolidation authorities. 5. THE fourth contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the revisional authority has wrongly observed that the signature of Sita Ram over 'Will' in question was not denied. 6. FIFTHLY it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the revisional authority has patently erred in throwing burden upon the petitioner to prove that the 'Will' in question was a forged one. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that on the findings of fact recorded by the revisional authority the 'Will' executed in favour of contesting opposite party was rightly held as a genuine document. He has also submitted that the tape recorded evidence referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner does no t prove pleadings put forward by the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the 'Will' was wrongly characterised doubtful by the two courts below and the revisional authority has correctly appraised the evidence on the facts and the circumstances of the case and arrived at a correct conclusion. It has been hinted that the deceased father Sita Ram executed the 'Will' in favour of contesting opposite party due to circumstances that he had given 1000 silver coins and 3 seers of silver to the present petitioner and that the present petitioner was in service, whereas the contesting opposite party was living in village and was rendering service to his father, hence the 'Will' was a natural conduct of the deceased father and it was rightly characterised as a genuine document by the revisional authority. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. Some of the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as below. 8. IN H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , it has been emphasised that: "......The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the signature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will". In Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narain Deb, AIR 1962 SC 567 , again it has been emphasised that: "The burden is upon the propounder to discuss the special circumstances surrounding the execution of the will". 9. IN Gorantla Thalaiah v. Thakura Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1968 SC 1332 , the Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment has observed as below:- "It is well established that in a case in which a will is prepared under circumstances which raise suspicion of court that it does not express the mind of the testator it is for those who propound the will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances must be judged in the facts and the circumstances of each particular case. If, however, the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious manner." 10. IT is not necessary to deal with the other cases mentioned in para 8 (a) of the writ petition and relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances of the present case I am unable to hold that the revisional authority has patently erred in appraising the evidence. The revisional authority has expressed itself in the following words:- Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously stressed that the revisional authority has patently erred in placing burden upon the petitioner to establish that the will was a forged one. In this connection, 1 it is sufficient to mention that there was the finding of the Supreme Court in AIR 1959 SC 443 at page 452 (supra) vide para 20 that:- '.........It is true that if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators......' 11. TO my mind in the present case, it was the stand of the petitioner that the 'Will' was executed on a blank paper signed by the deceased father Sita Ram and that plea has not been established by cogent -evidence on record, hence the observations made by the revisional authority placing burden upon the petitioner cannot be termed as erroneous. 12. 12. IT is true that the propounder is a beneficiary in the 'Will'. But when he succeeds in proving due execution of the 'Will' by cogent evidence, I think that he discharges the burden and it was necessary for the petitioner to establish that the 'Will' was written afterwards on a blank paper signed by the deceased father Sita Ram. To me the 'Will' set up by the contesting opposite party does not appear as unnatural. IT has often been seen that a man executes 'Will' of his property in favour of his younger son, who is not so well placed as his elder son. In view of the facts said in the 'Will' itself that the petitioner was in service and he was in a better position, hence the disputed property was given to the younger son, does not appear to me as unnatural. It is true that the revisional authority was not quite right in observing that the petitioner had not denied the signature of his father Sita Ram on the alleged 'Will'. But on the evidence adduced by the contesting opposite party it has been established beyound shadow of doubt that the petitioner father had signed the document and that the document was explained to him and that the witnesses and the testator had also signed the document. In such a circumstance that the petitioner had not denied the signature of his father Sita Ram on the alleged 'Will' in the judgment does not vitiate the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the revisional authority. 13. AS regards the petitioner's contention that the evidence of tape record was not taken into account by the Consolidation authorities, I think that the Consolidation Officer should have considered the effect of the evidence of tape record. In AIR 1973 SC 157 , the Supreme Court has indicated that tape recorded version is admissible provided (1) the version is relevant to the matters in issue and is in the shape of legal evidence, (2) the identification of the voice tape recorded is proved (3) the accuracy of the version is proved by eliminating the possibility of errasing the tape record. 14. FOR the sake of argument, even if the tape recorded evidence has not been taken into account, there is enough evidence to justify the conclusions arrived at by the revisional authority. 14. FOR the sake of argument, even if the tape recorded evidence has not been taken into account, there is enough evidence to justify the conclusions arrived at by the revisional authority. The evidence in the form of tape record version, contained in Annexure No. 13 and Annexure No. 14, does not inspire confidence. It is also not known whether the aforesaid evidence is in the shape of legal evidence on record, whether the identification of the voice tape recorded has been proved and whether the accuracy of the version has been proved by eliminating the possibility of errasing the tap record. Therefore, non consideration of tape recorded evidence does not vitiate the impugned judgment. As regards the petitioner's contention that the 'Will' is bad in law because it dealt with 'Sirdar' plots also, I think that this contention has force. 'Sirdari' plots are non-transferable plots and no valid 'Will- could be executed in respect of 'Sirdari' plots. This aspect of the matter has escaped notice of the revisional authority, hence its judgment regarding 'Sirdari' plots suffers from patent errors of law and desrves to be quashed. 15. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds in part and the impugned judgment of the revisional authority regarding 'Sirdari' plots is hereby quashed and the revisional authority is directed to pass final order regarding the claim of both the parties, in 'Sirdari' plots. There is no order as to costs. Petition allowed.