JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated July 5, 1982. 2. Heard the parties and perused the file. 3. The suit was filed by one Asha Kumari on April 29, 1975 for a declaration that she may be declared tenant of the 1/3rd share of Jagardeo. She alleged that on February 18, 1974 Jagardeo executed sale in her favour. It is a registered sale deed. 4. The suit was contested by Jyoti Shanker and Moti. A written statement was filed on May 27, 1975 denying the contentions of the plaintiff and inter alia alleging that a 'will' was executed on April 1, 1974 in their favour and it was signed by Jagardeo, hence they may be declared as tenant of 1/3rd share of Jagardeo. At first the suit was dismissed by Assistant Collector 1st Class on February 11, 1976 then it was remanded by Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated May 22, 1976. 5. After remand on August 19, 1978 Assistant Collector 1st Class decreed the suit and while deciding the suit he has observed that the subsequent 'will' was not registered. Appeal was filed against this judgment and it was dismissed by Additional Commissioner by his judgment dated July 5, 1982. Hence the present second appeal. 6. No doubt there is a concurrent finding of fact from both the courts below and they have relied upon the earlier 'will' which was registered one and have discarded the latter 'will'. But both the courts below have given this finding of fact on the basis of irrelevant material and considerations and have ignored the specific provisions of law. 7. The rules and principles regarding the proof and acceptance of 'wills' are - firstly registration of 'will' is not mandatory (Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act), it is optional (Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act); secondly every 'will' must be in writing and attested by two witnesses (Section 169(3) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act). Thirdly the execution of the will must be proved by the attesting witness (Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act); fourthly the latter 'will' is registered one cannot be ground for disbelieving the other unregistered 'will'. 8. The courts below have not followed any of the above mentioned principles. 9. Thirdly the execution of the will must be proved by the attesting witness (Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act); fourthly the latter 'will' is registered one cannot be ground for disbelieving the other unregistered 'will'. 8. The courts below have not followed any of the above mentioned principles. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has stated that the earlier registered 'will' was proved by a witness but after the perusal of the file it appears that no marginal witness has been examined to prove the 'will' dated February 18, 1974. He contended further that in the latter 'will' the existence of former 'will' has been admitted, hence there is no need to prove the same. This contention of the learned counsel is fallacious because the 'will' dated April 1, 1974 is disbelieved and it has been observed by the courts below that this 'will' did not appear to be genuine. It is, then, not open for the courts below to rely on the contents of that 'will' and then try to hold that there was an earlier 'will' dated February 18, 1974. Apart from this there is no ground on the basis of which it can be said that the alleged 'will' was the same on which the plaintiff relied. Hence this contention of the learned counsel has no force. Thirdly he contended that it was a registered 'will' hence it should be presumed to be correct. In my opinion there cannot be any such presumption in respect of a registered 'will'. 10. From the above observations it is clear that the judgments of the courts below are not based on any evidence but are based on irrelevant considerations, hence they have not properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them. 11. I, therefore, allow the appeal with costs throughout, set aside the judgments of the courts below dated July 5, 1982 and August 19, 1978 and dismiss the suit.