( 1 ) THIS revision is filed under Section 21 of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on agricultural Hoidings) Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") by the legal representatives of the original declarant. ( 2 ) IT is sufficient to refer to the facts of this case from the stage where the Primary tribunal passed order dt. 23-3-1994 holding that the declarant held an extent of ac. O. 2137 S. H. in excess of ceiling limits. The declarant was one Smt. Surayamma w/o. Bangar Raju. Consequent on the orders dt. 23-3-1994, the Primary Tribunal initiated proceedings under Section 10 (4) of the Act for surrender of excess lands. Since the lands are not being surrendered, the primary Tribunal undertook selection of the lands from the lands held by the declarant. Accordingly, notices were issued in Form no. 8 on 21-5-1995 selecting certain survey numbers for surrender. ( 3 ) AT this stage I. A. No. 9 of 1995 was filed stating that late Bangar Raju, the husband of the declarant executed a will dt. 20-5-1970 bequeathing life interest in favour of his wife Smt. Surayamma in respect of the lands in S. Nos. 513/3,489/4, 489/2, 1043 and 1129 and the vested remainder in favour of them (respondents 2 and 3); that Sri Bangar Raju died on 30-6-1972; that consequent on the death of bagar Raju, the will became operative and smt. Surayamma got life interest in respect of those lands; Smt. Surayamma, the declarant, died on 13-7-1986; that thereafter the vested remainder reverted to the respondents 2 and 3 and in that view of the matter, the very computation of these survey numbers in the holding of surayamma was contrary to law and ultimately they prayed that these items of lands are liable to be reverted to them. In support of their contention, they have also stated that on the basis of the will, o. P. No. 13 of 1974 was filed in the Court of subordinate Judge, Amalapuram and succession Certificate was issued to them by that Court acting upon the will. Before the Primary Tribunal they filed the will marked as Ex:c. l, the petition filed in o. P. NO. Before the Primary Tribunal they filed the will marked as Ex:c. l, the petition filed in o. P. NO. 13 of 1974, marked as Ex: C2, the order passed in O. P. No. 13 of 1974, marked as Ex:c. 3, the Succession Certificate, marked as Ex: C. 4 and death extract of the declarant marked as Ex: C. 5. ( 4 ) THE Primary Tribunal dealt with these contentions and refused to accept the same on the following grounds: (a) that the will Ex: C. 1 was written only on plain paper; (b) that the Succession Certificate, ex: C. 4 passed by the Subordinate judge, Amalapuram in O. P. No. 13 of 1974 was subsequent to the crucial date i. e. 2-5-1972 and as such it is not binding; and (c) that the mutation has not taken place in favour of the applicants in la. subsequent to the death of the declarant on 13-7-1986. ( 5 ) ON these conclusions, the Primary tribunal rejected the LA. The petitioners herein filed L. R. A. No. 73 of 1995 before the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, kakinada against the order of the Primary tribunal. ( 6 ) THE Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal had discussed the legal position as to the consequences of the will as well as the scope and ambit of the life interest and the vested remainder under the will, the permissibility of computation of lands in respect of which the declarant had only a life interest with reference to the various judgments reported in 1994 (1) JT SC 11, 1992 (3) ALT 189 , 1978 (1) APLJ 271 etc. On legal position, the Appellate Tribunal was convinced that if a declarant gets only a life interest under a will, such land cannot be included in the holding of the declarant, however, as to the genuineness of the will, having noted the findings of the Primary tribunal it went a step further and observed as under:"they have not filed the said will in o. P. No. 13 of 1974 to substantiate their contention. If the will is filed before any Court or Tribunal of in any earlier proceedings, there may be some force in the contention raised by them in the appeal. " ( 7 ) HAVING recorded this finding, the appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. This revision is filed against the dismissal order. If the will is filed before any Court or Tribunal of in any earlier proceedings, there may be some force in the contention raised by them in the appeal. " ( 7 ) HAVING recorded this finding, the appellate Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. This revision is filed against the dismissal order. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of the Primary tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained either on facts on in law. He contends that the reasons assigned by the Primary and Appellate Tribunals are contrary to law and ultimately submits that both the orders are liable to be set aside and the land covered by the will deserves to be excluded. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the learned Asst government Pleader Sri G. Venkateshwar rao states that the petitioners and the respondents 2 and 3 have failed to establish the genuineness of the will before the primary and Appellate Tribunals. ( 10 ) INASMUCH as both the Primary and appellate Tribunals have accepted the legal consequences when the land is held by the declarant only as a life interest, it is not necessary to delve into that question. There was no quarrel with the proposition that if a declarant holds a piece of land with a life interest the same cannot be included in the holding. This was the ruling of the Supreme court in the decision reported in 1994 (1) JT sc 11. The only question that needs to be considered is whether the will put forward by the parties was genuine or not. ( 11 ) IT was not in dispute that the will was filed as Ex: C. 1 in O. P. No. 13 of 1974 before the Subordinate Court, Amalapuram. Before that Court the second respondent herein was examined as DW. 1, the two attesting witnesses were examined as dws. 2 and 3. Having been satisfied about the execution as well as proof, the subordinate Court, Amalapuram passed a decree and issued a Succession Certificate which was marked as Ex. C. 3 before the primary Tribunal. ( 12 ) THE first objection raised by the primary Tribunal as to acceptability and validity of the will Ex. C. 1 which was executed only on a plain paper. This objection cannot be sustained at all. C. 3 before the primary Tribunal. ( 12 ) THE first objection raised by the primary Tribunal as to acceptability and validity of the will Ex. C. 1 which was executed only on a plain paper. This objection cannot be sustained at all. Law does not require the Will to be executed or written on any stamp paper or for that matter in any prescribed form. Law does not require Will to be registered. Therefore, this objection raised by the primary tribunal stands overruled. ( 13 ) THE Primary Tribunal has also taken the view that the succession certificate ex. C. 4 issued by the Court of the subordiante Judge, Amalapuram in op No. 13 of 1974 is subsequent to the crucial date i. e. 2-5-1972 and the same cannot be acted upon. Under Section 7 of the Act, transfers subsequent to the crucial date by the declarants are prohibited. Obviously, the primary Tribunal wanted to apply that provision for the transactions that have taken place under the Will. The succession certificate Ex. C. 4 is nothing but an order by the competent Court giving effect to the will. The primary Tribunal proceeded on the footing that devolution of property on the legatees is a transfer and in as much as this has taken place subsequent to the date stipulated under Section 7, the same cannot be accepted. This premise is contrary to law on this subject. ( 14 ) WHAT takes place when a Will is given effect to, is not a transfer or conveyance. It only results in succession. The chain of succession contemplated under the relevant law will be replaced by the choice of the testator. The fact remains that legatee gets the property not by way of transfer but by way of succession. When once the operation of the Will does not result in any transfer, the prohibition contained in Section 7 of the Act does not apply. Therefore, the second objection raised by the primary Tribunal also fails. ( 15 ) THE 3rd objection was that since mutations in the revenue records did not take place, consequent upon the devolution of the property under the Will, the same cannot be recognised. This contention is to be noted only for rejecting it. Therefore, the second objection raised by the primary Tribunal also fails. ( 15 ) THE 3rd objection was that since mutations in the revenue records did not take place, consequent upon the devolution of the property under the Will, the same cannot be recognised. This contention is to be noted only for rejecting it. Subsequent to mutations in revenue records or their absence transfer or devolution under the will do not have any effect on the validity or enforceability of such transfer or devolution. ( 16 ) THE Appellate Tribunal, though discussed the matter at length, has committed a factual error in taking the view that the will has not been produced before any Court. A reading of its observation reveals that the appellate Tribunal was convinced that, if the will was dealt with by any Court or Tribunal or in any earlier proceedings, there may be some force in the contention. Inasmuch as it is a matter fact and record that the will was not only dealt with but was also accepted by upon by, the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and a decree emerged out of it, the finding of the appellate Tribunal cannot be also be sustained. ( 17 ) FROM the discussion, it is evident that the will was accepted by the Subordinate court, Amalapuram and a decree emerged out of it. In this mater, while the primary tribunal erred on question of law, the appellate Tribunal erred on facts. In that view of the matter both the orders of the primary as well as the Appellate Tribunal are set aside. The primary Tribunal is directed to accept the will, as well as its consequences. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to exclude those lands, which are covered by the will from the holding of the declarant. This however does not prevent the primary Tribunal to initiate proceedings in respect of any surplus land which may remain after exclusion of these lands. The c. R. P. is accordingly allowed. No order to costs.