ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- This is an appeal under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act. 1953 filed by Shri Amresh Sharma resident of Jai Ram Bhawan. Cemetry Road Sanjauli. Shimla-6 against the order dated 09.08.1999 passed by the Divisional Commissioner shimla in Revenue Revision No.209/98 whereby the learned Commissioner by setting aside the order dated 5.11.1998 of the Sub-divisional Collector remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade Shimla (R) for deciding the mutation afresh after affording due opportunity to the objector and other necessary parties. 2. The facts of the case are that on the death of one Shri B. Ram Prapannacharya who owned land appurtenent to Khata No.83. Khasra No.859/6 measuring 0-12 Bigha situated in mauza chamayana. Tehsil Shimla the Assistant collector Ilnd grade Shimla (R) attested mutation No.513 of his inheritance on 2.12.1987 in favour of the present applicant shri Amresh Sharma on the basis of unregistered will purported to have been executed by the deceased owner in his favour. 3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector II Grade Shimla dated 2.12.1987. Baba Nand Ram Dass the present respondent filed an appeal before the Collector. Shimla Sub-Division on the grounds that the property mutated in favor of the present appellant ought to have not mutated in his favour because the property was acquired by Shri B. Rama Prapannacharya out of Hanuman Mandir funds Jakhu and from public contributions and that B. Prapannacharya being a Sadhu belonging to a religious sect was not entitled to execute any will or to nominate any successor of the property under the provision of Hindu Succession Act. and that the present respondent Baba Nand Ram Dass being a Sadhu of the same sect had a right to raise objections in the matter and the objection so raised by him before the Assistant Collector II Grade had not been appreciated and the mutation was decided without considering the objections. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record, accepted the appeal and set aside the mutation No.5I3 vide order dated 21.05.1990. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record, accepted the appeal and set aside the mutation No.5I3 vide order dated 21.05.1990. This order was challenged by the present petitioner Shri Amresh Sharma in an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division on the grounds that he had rightly succeeded to the estate of Rama Prapannacharya on the basis of a valid will which had not been invalidated by any competent authority and that the objections raised by the present responded were also considered by the trial Court. 5. The Learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and having gone through the case records concluded that the Assistant Collector 2nd grade below wrongly rejected the objections raised by the present respondent. The learned commissioner accordingly dismissed the appeal of present appellant vide order dated 06.05.1996 and affirmed the order of Sub Divisional Collector. 6. In pursuance of the order dated 6.5.1996 of the Commissioner, the Assistant Collector 11 Grade heard the matter and sanctioned the mutation in favour of shri Amresh Sharma. the present appellant vide order dated 28.09.1997. Against this order. Baba Nand Ram Dass (present respondent) filed an appeal before the Sub-divisional collector (Rural) Shimla who dismissed the same vide order dated 5.11.1998. This order was further challenged by the present respondent in a revision petition before the Commissioner Shimla Division who after hearing the both parties observed that the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade below had not cared to comply the specific directions of the higher courts and had attested the mutation without affording due opportunity of being heard to the objector and set-aside the order dated 05.11.1998 of the Sub- divisional Collector vide order dated 09.08.1999 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade Shimla (Rural) for deciding the mutation afresh by affording due opportunity to the objectors and other necessary parties of being heard in the matter. 7. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by Shri Amresh Sharma appellant before this Court. 8. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded due opportunity to address their claimed in this Court. 9. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that this is the third round of litigation between the parties and succession of said Shri Prapannacharya. Chela of Shri Avadh Behari Lai has not been finalized even after 16-18 years of his death. 8. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded due opportunity to address their claimed in this Court. 9. The learned counsel for appellant submitted that this is the third round of litigation between the parties and succession of said Shri Prapannacharya. Chela of Shri Avadh Behari Lai has not been finalized even after 16-18 years of his death. It has been argued that the appellant is the Chela of the said Shri Prapannacharya as also his nephnew. the Will made in his favour is genuine and the appellant has been duly granted succession certificate by the Distt. Judge Shimla. It was accordingly prayed that the appeal of Shri Prapannacharya be finalized once for all. 10. The learned counsel for respondent urged that the respondent was not afforded opportunity by the Assistant Collector while attesting the mutation for which specific direction was given to him by the learned Commissioner. It has been submitted that the respondent be afforded opportunity to defend his claim. On merits it was argued that the said Will made in favour of appellant is the result of fraud and said Shri Prapannacharya could not make any Will in favour of any body, as the property in question was owned by the Sect to which he belonged. It was accordingly prayed that mutation could not have been attested in accordance with the Will. After giving thoughtful consideration of the points in controversy and submissions made by the rival parties in respect of their claims, the undisputed position that emerges is that Shri Prapannancharya. Chela of Shri Avadh Behari Lal died on 31.07.1984 in Delhi leaving behind movable and immovable property at Shimla including some bank accounts. The deceased before his death, in his life time executed a Will in favour of the appellants as his only successor, being this nephew. By virtue of the Will Shri Prapannancharya bequeathed his entire property namely: House. Bank Accounts. Post Office Accounts to Shri Amresh Sharma. the appellant on 24.10.1983. Subsequently mutation also came to be attested in favour of appellant by the Assistant Collector Shimla but the mutation was set-aside in appeal on one ground or the other. By virtue of the Will Shri Prapannancharya bequeathed his entire property namely: House. Bank Accounts. Post Office Accounts to Shri Amresh Sharma. the appellant on 24.10.1983. Subsequently mutation also came to be attested in favour of appellant by the Assistant Collector Shimla but the mutation was set-aside in appeal on one ground or the other. Lately the mutation was attested by Assistant Collector on 28.09.1997 on which date respondent did not attend the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, as he claims to be unaware of the date of hearing, though the Assistant Collector has pointed out in the order that information was sent to the respondent but he did not appear despite information. It is seen that the parties are in litigation over the question of inheritance of said late Shri Prapannancharya in the third round, the two earlier rounds having been agitated upto the level of Commissioner since the death of Shri Prapannancharya in the year 1984 and the question of inheritance of Shri Prapannancharya is uncertain and still hangs in balance. The litigation should come to an end some day and should not be allowed to be protracted on the will and whim of the parties. The question of opportunity that the respondent claims to have not had before the Assistant Collector does not inspire confidence as he has been pursuing the litigation since 1984 and cannot be said that he was not aware of the proceeding before the Assistant Collector on 28.09.1997. Therefore we are inclined to disagree to the learned commissioner on this point. 11. In so far as the question of genuineness and the competence of Shri Prapannancharya to execute a Will in favour of Shri Amresh Sharma who is said to be gainfully employed in the Government service is no longer open to question at the hands of respondent as the same Will came in consideration before the learned Distt. Judge Shimla. before whom Shri Amresh Sharma claimed succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act on the basis of said Will., The learned Distt. judge vide judgment dated 23.02.1989 held Shri Amresh Sharma. the appellant as legal heir of the deceased on account of the Will in question by which he inherited fixed deposits and savings Bank Account left by the deceased in the Nationalized Banks. It. judge vide judgment dated 23.02.1989 held Shri Amresh Sharma. the appellant as legal heir of the deceased on account of the Will in question by which he inherited fixed deposits and savings Bank Account left by the deceased in the Nationalized Banks. It. therefore, cannot be said that the said will can have the pan execution in relation only to the Bank Accounts owned by the deceased. The will has to be given effect into its entirety and not in part. The succession of the house of the deceased shall also pass in accordance with the will so long as the Will is held valid in relation to movable property. Therefore the question of applicability of the Will with regard to house cannot be negatived. Secondly, the Assistant Collector has attested the mutation in accordance with the Judgment dated 23.02.1989 of the Distt. Judge Shimla and therefore, the respondent cannot successfully challenge the mutation as long as the said judgment holds ground. 12. Under these circumstances, the appeal is accepted and the order passed by Assistant Collector, confirmed by Collector are affirmed and the impugned orders are set-aside. 13. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.