JUDGMENT S. R. Misra, J. 1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 22-1-1985 and that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 31-112-1985 allowing the appeal of the respondent no. 3 and dismissing the revision upholding the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 2. I have heard Sri R. N. Singh at some length in support of the writ petition and Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, appearing for the respondent no. 3 The dispute giving rise to the present writ petition is as to who is legal heir of Bhola, a tenure holder having 2 khatas, one in village Chhattari of Khatauni no. 150 and the other of village Kharkhendi of khatauni no. 176. Pedegree which is admitted between the parties is given below :- Ghasi _________|__________________ | | Shiv Charan Bhola Chand __________|____________________ | | | Aman Singh Bhagwat Ciaman Singh 3. It is admitted that on the death of Bhola, the name of Khem Chand was entered in the revenue papers in a proceeding under section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and objection under section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent no. 3 Aman Singh alleging that Bhola died on 12-3-1977 and he left a will in his favour, so the revenue entries be corrected, incorporating his name. Khem Chand the real brother and heir of Bhola executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners contested the objection of the respondent no. 3 and alleged that will in question is fraudulent and fictitious and various other objections were raised which will be dealt with later on. 4. Consolidation Officer held that the will is suspicious document and in support of his finding he recorded a number of reason for discarding and disbelieving the validity of the will. Aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 11-9-1981, respondent no, 3 filed an appeal and the appellate court by its order dated 22-1-1985 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. There were two cases which were registered before the Consolidation Officer bearing case nos. 700 and 701. As such two appeals were filled and both the appeals as stated were allowed. There were two cases which were registered before the Consolidation Officer bearing case nos. 700 and 701. As such two appeals were filled and both the appeals as stated were allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) two revisions were filed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 31-12-1985 dismissed both the revisions and hence this writ petition. According to the petitioners, Khem Chand sold the plot to Jai Karan and others for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter Jai Karan and others are in actual physical possession. The sole question which requires decision and consideration is whether Bhola executed a will in favour of Aman Singh, respondent no. 3 and whether will has been proved. 5. Sri R. N. Singh appearing for the petitioners has urged that the finding of the Consolidation Officer and the reasons mentioned therein for discarding the will have neither been reversed by the appellate court nor by revisional court : the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has made out a new case for respondent no. 5. Sri R. N. Singh appearing for the petitioners has urged that the finding of the Consolidation Officer and the reasons mentioned therein for discarding the will have neither been reversed by the appellate court nor by revisional court : the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has made out a new case for respondent no. 3 that even if the will is not proved the intention of Bhola was for a oral will can be inferred i there are surreptitious circumstances which have not been looked into by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation; burden has wrongly been placed on the petitioners; nomination in insurance policy by the deceased is not a decisive factor and no inference can be drawn for upholding the validity of the will on account of nomination; the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) has not recorded any finding after considering the oral evidence or any other evidence that the will has been proved; a perusal of the wording of the will shows that it was drafted by some professional; it has been fur their mentioned in the will that the will is being executed to avoid further litigation another reason mentioned in the will for execution of the same is that Aman Singh was living along with Bhola whereas it has been admitted by Aman Singh that Bhola was in employment and Aman Singh was living in the village and lastly, it was pointed out that a stamp paper was purchased by Aman Singh in the name of Bhola only 8 days prior to the death of Bhola and in his statement Aman Singh has stated that the will was executed 4 or 5 months prior to his death. Scribe has not been produced nor the name of the typist who has typed out has been disclosed. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions reported in :- Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, 1990 SC 1742 Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti, 1990 SC 396 Smt. Indu Bala Bose v. Manendra Chandra Bose, 1982 SC 133 Narendra Karsonas v. S. A. Kamtam, 1977 SC 774 Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi,, 1984 SC 346 6. Sri R. N. Singh further urged that it was judgment of reversal by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation and while setting) aside the judgment of Consolidation Officer, it was obligatory an the part of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to have considered the points on which the judgment of Consolidation Officer was based. Sri Rajwanshi, appearing for the respondent no. 3 tried to justify the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation and submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation having recorded a finding, giving various reasons, as a result of which he came to the conclusion that there was every intention on the part of Bhola to have given the property to Aman Singh and any technical flaw in the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who is not expected to write a judgment like a civil court but in sum and substance, cannot be a ground for interference. The Deputy Director of Consolidation having agreed with the finding of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), and h!s independent consideration of the materials makes the judgment a finding of fact and no interference is called for. According to him the mere fact that the stamp was purchased 8 days, prior to the death of Bhola i.e. on 4-3-1977, but there is no finding that this stamp was purchased and utilised in executing the will. According to him the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioners da not have direct bearing on the point involved. Totality of the circumstances are to be taken into consideration and the stray observation made here and there will not make the order of an authority recording a finding of fact, liable to be intereferred within the writ jurisdiction. 7. Sri Rajvanshi further contended that in view of the finding of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Bhola was living jointly with Aman Singh and Bhola having nominated him as the nominee in his insurance policy and provident fund, gratuity etc. 7. Sri Rajvanshi further contended that in view of the finding of the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Bhola was living jointly with Aman Singh and Bhola having nominated him as the nominee in his insurance policy and provident fund, gratuity etc. he having performed the last rite after the death of Bhola and paid land revenue and certain dues, which were outstanding towards the cooperative dues against Bhola, these ore the circumstances which indicate that the two authorities have considered the matter in its proper perspective and, as such, it is not a fit case in which this court may exercise Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the respective arguments of the parties and having perused the orders of the Consolidation Authorities, I am of the view that the Assistant Settlement Officer (consolidation) has not recorded any finding after considering the evidence on record and a perusal of his order would go to show that in his judgment he has devoted most of his time in writing the rival contentions and mostly the contentions raised on behalf of Aman Singh who was the appellant before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). In this connection the relevant portion of the observations of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are quoted below - "In paristhitiyon mein appealkarta ki ore se jo sakehya prastut kiye gaye hain wah sahi prateet hote bain. Ho sakta hai ki iske likhte samay ya usko sidh karne main koi kami baaki rah gayi ho parantu is uprokta aadhaar par siddh hai ki mritak ki khwahish thi ki woh apni jaaydaad appealkarta Aman Singh ko de dey. Aaisi soorat mein yadi yeh Dastavej wasiyatnann na hewa hota to bhi mritak ki khwahish ke anusaar appealkarta hi uski jaaydaad ka hakdaar hoga'' The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also not recorded any finding regarding the signatures on the will and he has observed as follows ; "Main Vidwaan Sahayak Bandobast Aadhiksri chakbandi ke is mat se poorntah sehmat hoon ki Sri Aman Singh ne apni wasiyatnaamey ko poorntah siddh kiya hal." 9. There is no finding by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation to this effect. 10. Thus the relevant portion of the judgment shows that the A.S.O.C. and D.D.C. have not recorded a clear cut finding as to whether the will has been proved or not. There is no finding by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation to this effect. 10. Thus the relevant portion of the judgment shows that the A.S.O.C. and D.D.C. have not recorded a clear cut finding as to whether the will has been proved or not. The only finding is as follows : "Dastawej par jo hastakchar Bhola ka hai wo hastakchar us hastakchar se bhinn ro sakta bai Jo Dastawej Balnamein par hai, parantu is sambacdh mein espasluh roop sey yeh kah dssa ki kaua sa hastakchar sahi hai aur kaun sa galat uchit nahi hoga". Therefore, Actually there is no finding of fact in the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) after appreciating the real evidence to prove the genuineness of the will and this finding has been approved by the Deputy Director of Co-solvation As there is apparent error in the order of the Assistant Settle-neat Officer (Consolidation), in not recording the positive finding, approval of such a finding makes the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation an erroneous order in the eye of law. It is also clear from the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) find 'he Deputy Director of Consolidation that they were taking a contrary view than the view taken by the Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer having recorded a number of reasons in his order and the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) being an order of reversal he was expected to have met those points before reversing the order of the Consolidation Officer. 11. It is true that a will necessarily need not be registered one. Bat attempt has been made by respondent no. 3 to get the will sealed by the notary and vide notice dated 6-7-1S77 Aman Singh has given a notice through Sri Suresh Chandra Chauhan, Advocate claiming himself to be adopted son of Bhola. It is also mot clear that whether requirement of attestation of a will, as provided under section 68 of the Evidence Act, is fulfilled or not. 12. So far as nomination in insurance policy of Aman Singh and the effect of nomination are concerned, it is contained in section 39 of the Insurance Policy Act (4) of 1938. It is also mot clear that whether requirement of attestation of a will, as provided under section 68 of the Evidence Act, is fulfilled or not. 12. So far as nomination in insurance policy of Aman Singh and the effect of nomination are concerned, it is contained in section 39 of the Insurance Policy Act (4) of 1938. In this connection, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in 1984, SC 343 (Smt. Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, that :- "The summary of the relevant portion of the Section 39 establishes clearly that the policy holder continues to hold interest in the policy during his life time and the nominee acquires no sort of interest in the policy during life time of the policy holder. If that is so, on the death of policy holder the amount payable under the policy becomes part of his estate which is governed by the law of succession may be testamentary or intestate........ The provision under sub-section (6) of section 39 which says that the amount shall be payable to the nominee or nominees doss not mean that the amount shall belong to the nominee or nominees," In view of the aforesaid decision, no conclusive assistance can be drawn from the nomination in favour of the respondent no. 3 by Bhola. In Smt. Indu Bala Bose v. Manendra Chandra Bose, 1982 SC 133 the Supreme Court while considering section 74 and 63 of the Succession Act, laid down the principles regarding proof of the Will and held as under : "The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and In the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution the of will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine." 13. In Ram Piari. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine." 13. In Ram Piari. v. Bhagwant, 1990 SC 1742, the Supreme Court has further observed as follows :- "Even though it cannot be said to be hard and fast rule yet when disinheritance is amongst heirs of equal degree and no reason for exclusion is disclosed, then the standard of scrutiny is not the same and if the courts failed to be alive to It then their orders cannot be said to be beyond review." 14. Although this Court normally does not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the courts below under Articles 226 of the Constitution but if the finding is recorded by erroneous application of principles of law and resulting in miscarriage of justice this Court cannot restrain itself from interference. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court, it is clear that mere suspicious circumstances will not make a genuine will a bad one, but apart from the circumstances, what is required in the law is that the will not must be proved and as stated earlier there is no finding by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Deputy Director of Consolidation, after perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on the record that the will was executed by Bhola and the execution of will has been proved in accordance with law The matter can be disposed of on this ground alone and the various arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners and supported by the contesting respondents are not of much importance. However, since the arguments have been advanced, they have been considered. 15. Having considered the relevant documents on the record and also having taken into consideration the judgment of the Consolidation Officer regarding the genuiness of the will and in the light of the observations made above the writ petition is allowed and the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Deputy Director of Consolidation are sec aside and the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the two appeals afresh in accordance with law after recording the relevant finding regarding the genuineness of the will and in the light of the observations made above. Any observation made above by this Court on the merit of the case will not be taken to be final and the Consolidation Authorities are free to decide the rights of the parties afresh and will record relevant finding on the question of genuineness of the will. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.