ORDER : The petitioners, in the instant Writ Petition, have challenged the order passed by the Additional Tehsildar (Recovery) : Bhopal in Recovery Case No. 7 of 1999-2000. 2. The Respondent No. 4 Shri K. K. Argal and Shri R. K. Singh obtained the loan in their capacity of their Directors of M/s. Central India Organics Pvt. Ltd. Shri K. K. Argal also stood as a guarantor. The borrower failed to repay the loan and interest and the amount increased to 164.33 lakhs. Considering the fact of non-payment of loan, the Managing Director of the M. P. Financial Corporation exercised statutory powers under Section 3 of the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashion Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 and issued the recovery certificate No. 308 dated 15-12-1999 directing the Respondent No. 3 to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue. It was specifically stated in the recovery certificate that the recovery against Shri K. K. Argal may be made by auction of house Nos. E-5/68 Arera Colony, Bhopal and A-34 Machhana Colony Bhopal belonging to Shri K. K. Argal. Copy of this recovery certificate is filed as Annexure-R3/1. The Deputy General Manager of M. P. Financial Corporation, Bhopal is the ex-officio Additional Tehsildar appointed by the State Government under Section 24 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. He functions as a Revenue Court within the meaning of Section 31 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code'). The power of recovery under Chapter XI of the Code are exercisable as per Rules framed under Schedule I of the Code. Section 139 of the Code provides that person in possession of the property is liable to pay the recoverable amount. Section 147 of the Code also deals with the procedure for recovery of arrears and the recovery can be made by attachment and sale of any other immovable property belonging to the defaulter. It is not necessary that recovery should be made only from the property mortgaged or charged to the decree holder. Section 150 of the Code provides that sale of the property can be stayed on payment of due amount under protest and thereafter proceedings may be instituted in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter a civil suit may also be filed. 3. Houses E-5/68 Arera Colony, Bhopal and A-34 Machhana Colony, Bhopal were attached and proposed to be sold. Section 150 of the Code provides that sale of the property can be stayed on payment of due amount under protest and thereafter proceedings may be instituted in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter a civil suit may also be filed. 3. Houses E-5/68 Arera Colony, Bhopal and A-34 Machhana Colony, Bhopal were attached and proposed to be sold. The mother and brothers of Respondent No. 4 Shri K. K. Argal filed an objection before the Additional Tehsildar (Recovery). The Writ Petition (W.P. No. 3141/2001) was also filed before this Court which was decided on 1-8-2001. This Court had directed the petitioners to raise the objection before the Additional Tehsildar (Recovery) who shall decide the objection in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of the objection. Till the matter was finalised, status quo was directed to be maintained and the Writ Petition was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Thereafter the objections were preferred by the petitioners which have been decided as per order Annexure-P/1 dated 28-9-2001. 4. The petitioner main plank of objection was that deceased M. P. Argal had executed a will on 18-9-1990 before his death on 23-10-1990. According to the will the house No. E-5/68 in Arera Colony Bhopal was given to Smt. Shakuntala Argal and Shri Akhilesh Argal and house No. A-34 in Machhana Colony, Bhopal was given to Shri Yogesh Kumar Argal. The objection was raised that Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal has no right, title and interest in the above properties and they cannot be attached and auctioned for the dues of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal. The validity of this will was disputed by M. P. Financial Corporation. The Additional Tehsildar found that the document dated 18-9-1990, being a deed of settlement, is not enforceable under law because it is neither properly stamped nor registered. There is no evidence that this document was ever acted upon as a will or as a settlement deed. The other suspicious circumstance is that after death of Shri M. P. Argal the house No. E-5/68 Arera Colony, Bhopal was mutated in the name of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal in the records of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. This position was made clear by the Municipal Corporation in its letter dated 30th July, 2001 sent to Additional Tehsildar (Recovery) Bhopal. The other suspicious circumstance is that after death of Shri M. P. Argal the house No. E-5/68 Arera Colony, Bhopal was mutated in the name of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal in the records of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. This position was made clear by the Municipal Corporation in its letter dated 30th July, 2001 sent to Additional Tehsildar (Recovery) Bhopal. The Additional Tehsildar has come to the conclusion that execution of new lease deed dated 18-1-2001 in the joint names of Smt. Shakuntala Argal and Shri Akhilesh Argal cannot divest the other legal heirs including Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal from right, title and interest in house No. E-5/68 Arera Colony Bhopal and Additional Tehsildar, therefore, held that Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal has a share in the property which can be attached and auctioned for realisation of dues against Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal. Additional Tehsildar further held that lease holds rights in the house No. A-34 Machhna Colony, Bhopal under the hire purchase agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board shall also stand transferred to the legal heirs of deceased Shri M. P. Argal and lease hold rights are transferable by way of auction for realisation of dues against one of the co-owners namely Shri Kamlesh Kumar Argal. 5. Learned counsel Shri Ajay Mishra has strenuously urged before this Court that there is no material in possession of M. P. Financial Corporation to fasten the liability with respect to the petitioners. He submits that will was executed by Shri M. P. Argal the Respondent No. 4 is having no right, title or interest over the house in question. It is also submitted that civil suit is also not the remedy and the document in question is not the settlement but is a will as it was intended to be operative after death of the deceased. 6. Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the M. P. Financial Corporation, submits that genuiness of will is doubtful. After the death of Shri M. P. Argal, the mutation took place in the name of Shri K. K. Argal with respect to the house which is situated at Arera Colony, Bhopal and it is submitted that Respondent No. 4 is occupying the said house and with respect to Machhna Colony house, the Respondent No. 4 is clearly having the right on the basis of succession. 7. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion in writ jurisdiction, it would not be proper for this Court to decide about title and the validity or factum of the will. Will is required to be proved in the prescribed manner by examination of attesting witnesses before the Court. Civil Suit, is the proper remedy for establishing the title and to prove factum as well as the validity of will. From the document, it is clear that house in question in Arera Colony came to be recorded in the name of K. K. Argal (Respondent No. 4) who was guarantor as well as Director. Thus, it cannot be said that action being taken by Additional Tehsildar is baseless. Tehsildar had already given a finding that house in question situated in Arera Colony, recovery can be made to the extent to the share held by Shri K. K. Argal. If the petitioners so feel aggrieved by the order remedy lies in filing the Civil Suit not in Writ Petition. I find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed. Costs on Parties.