JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appel has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree of Additional Commissioner (Admin.), Moradabad Division. Moradabad dated 27.7.1990 passed in appeal No. 19 of 1989-90 against the judgment and decree of the A.S.D.O. Sadar, Rampur dated 21.2.1990/26.2.1990 passed in a suit No. 17 of 1988-89 Under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Rampur on 20.4.1988 with the plea that a Will deed has been executed in his favour by the original tenant on 15.8.1980. He applied for the mutation, the mutation has not been allowed in his favour hence he should be declared a bhumidhar of the suit plot. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that she is bhumidhar of the suit plot and the mother of the plaintiff-appellant contested the mutation proceeding after the death of the original tenant and she lost the mutation proceeding. After the mutation proceeding she also filed the suit under Section 229-B/209 of 1981-82. That suit was also dismissed on the contest on 19.4.1987. Then her son the present plaintiff-appellant has filed this suit. The trial court after framing the issues and after taking the evidence decreed the suit on 21.2.1990/26.2.1990. The appeal was filed against this decree and judgment which was also dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court on 27.7.1990, hence this second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant court cannot disbelieve the conclusion drawn by the trial court after considering the oral evidence in view of the law laid down in 1951(S.C) Page 120, 1980(S.C) page 2026, 1960(S.C) page 115 and 1943 A.I.R page 159(P.C). His contention is also that the Will is proved, therefore, the judgement and decree of the first appellate court is illegal and it should be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the mutation case is being contested between the parties since 1989-91. The unregistered so called Will was not disclosed in the proceedings when his mother contested the mutation proceeding as well as the title under section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 then this will set up. 7. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the mutation case is being contested between the parties since 1989-91. The unregistered so called Will was not disclosed in the proceedings when his mother contested the mutation proceeding as well as the title under section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 then this will set up. 7. The basis of the present suit is unregistered Will dated 15.8.1960. Merely proving of the Will is not sufficient but it should also be proved that whatever was willed was also delivered. When the Will is set up after a gap of so many years it is duty of the court to examine it. The appellate court has been given the jurisdiction to discuss the oral evidence. In discussing the oral evidence they may come together to different conclusion when the trial court has not scrutinized the oral evidence properly. There has been already litigation between the parties the Will was not disclosed is a strong circumstance against the appellant. No any other legal point has been argued before me. Therefore I find no force in this second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.