ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being finally disposed of. ( 3 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5th November, 1996 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and the order dated 22nd May, 1993 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Allahabad. ( 4 ) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are ; Dispute arose between the parties under Section 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In basic year records, the name of dharam Pal Singh was recorded on several khatas. An objection under Section 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was filed by the petitioner claiming that Dharam Pal Singh has executed registered Will in favour of the petitioner dated 17. 12. 1979, hence his name may be recorded in place of Dharam Pal Singh. Smt. Ram Pyari, widow of Dharam Pal Singh, filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming herself as heir of dharam PalSingh being widow. Smt. Ram Pyari has disputed the execution of Will in favour of petitioner by Dharam Pal Singh, deceased. Objection was filed under Section 9a (2) in which it was stated that Will was never executed by Late Dharam Pal Singh who died on 4. 3. 1980. It was further stated that there was enmity between the husband of Ram Pyari and the petitioner, Amar bahadur Singh, for the last several years and there is a separate mess of the parties. It was further stated that Dharam Pal Singh has not executed any Will before his death and he never went anywhere without taking his wife and his son-in-law. It was specifically stated that on 17. 12. 1979 Late Dharam Pal Singh did not go to Allahabad nor executed any registered Will. It was further stated that Dharam Pal Singh has not executed any Will before his death and he never went anywhere without taking his wife and his son-in-law. It was specifically stated that on 17. 12. 1979 Late Dharam Pal Singh did not go to Allahabad nor executed any registered Will. It was stated that petitioner, Amar Bahadur Singh, his father-in-law, Suryabali Singh and Shri. Daya Ram got a fictitious Will executed through Ram Shanker Nai and the thumb impressions which are on the Will as well as in the register of Sub-Registrar Office are of Ram Shanker Nai and the objector came to know about this fact through mutation case after seeing the Will and the affidavit of Ram Shanker Nai filed therein. The Consolidation Officer framed several issues. Smt. Ram Pyari, wife of Dharam Pal Singh, also died on 12. 10. 1984. A Will was executed by ram Pyari in favour of the contesting respondent her daughter. The petitioner produced suryabalt Singh and Daya Ram, attesting witnesses, to prove the Will. Ram Shanker Nai appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent before the Consolidation Officer. ( 5 ) THE Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the petitioner and held the Will dated 17. 12. 1979 proved on the basis of statement of attesting witnesses, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 before the Settlement Officer of consolidation against the order of Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer of consolidation allowed the appeal and returned a finding that Will dated 17. 12. 1979 is not proved. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation held the Will executed in favour of respondent no. 3 by Ram Pyari as proved. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation believed the statement of Rama Shanker Nai and held the Will not proved, The appellate court also referred to several suspicious circumstances on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that Will is not proved. A revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Settlement Officer of consolidation which revision has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 5. 11. 1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that will dated 17. 12. 1999 is not proved. A revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Settlement Officer of consolidation which revision has been dismissed by Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 5. 11. 1996. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also recorded a finding that will dated 17. 12. 1999 is not proved. The Deputy Director of Consolidation noted several suspicious circumstances on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that no interference is called for in the order of the appellate authority. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. ( 6 ) SHRI Sankatha Rai, counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order of. both the Courts below, raised following submissions : (i) The Will dated 17. 12. 1979 was proved by the petitioner in accordance with law by producing both the attesting witness and execution of Will having been proved In accordance with law, appellate authority and revisional authority committed error in not accepting the Will proved. (ii) There was no suspicious circumstances in execution of the Will dated 17. 12. 1979 and judgment of both, appellate authority and revisional authority, relying and referring certain circumstances as suspicious are irrelevant and do not furnish any good ground to hold the Will not proved. (iii) During pendency of the dispute Ram Pyari died and even if it is assumed that Will dated 17. 12. 1979 is not proved after the death of Ram Pyari, the brother of Dharam Pal Singh will succeed under Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the contesting respondent do not get any right after the death of Smt. Ram Pyari. Further the Will In favour of respondent No. 3 by Smt. Ram Pyari has not been proved in accordance with law. ( 7 ) SHRI Radhey Shyam, appearing for the respondent, refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, contended that both the appellate court and the revisional has rightly come to the finding that Will dated 17. 12. 1979 is not proved. He further contended that on examining the evidence on record including the oral evidence led by the parties finding of fact has been recorded that Will dated 17. 12. 1979 is not proved. 12. 1979 is not proved. He further contended that on examining the evidence on record including the oral evidence led by the parties finding of fact has been recorded that Will dated 17. 12. 1979 is not proved. This Court under Article 226 will neither reappraise the evidence nor record its finding with regard to Will having not proved. Shri radhey Shyam, counsel for the respondent contended that the statement of Shri Rama Shanker nai who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 was believed and accepted by the appellate and revisional courts to the effect that in the Will Dharam Pal Singh never put his thumb impression and it was Ram Sanker Nai who put his thumb impression. Shri Radhey Shyam further contended that Will in favour of respondent No. 3 has been duly proved before the Courts below by producing one attesting witness, Mansukh. He further contended that mere fact that Will in favour of respondent No. 3 was unregistered Will has no effect on the validity of the Will. The counsel for both the parties have relied on the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court which shall be considered while considering the respective submissions. ( 8 ) THE first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is regarding proof of execution of registered Will dated 17. 12. 1979. The principles for proving due execution of a Will are well established. Apex Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and Ors. , AIR 1959 sc 443 , while considering the said question laid down that for proving the Will test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. The Apex Court further held that the propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. ( 9 ) IT was further laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 which is extracted below : "20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the Will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. ( 9 ) IT was further laid down by the Apex Court in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 which is extracted below : "20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the Will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounders case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature ; the condition of the testators mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated, and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator ; the dispositions made in the Will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances ; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testators free will and mind. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicious should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy ; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged. Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators, but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter. " "21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the will propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. " "21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the will propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicious by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with Wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English Courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to Judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical Courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to Wills ; but any objection to the use of the word conscience in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is the last will of the testator, the Court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive. " "22. It is obvious that deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicious from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Diu Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson, 50 Cal WN 895 ; AIR 1946 PC 156, "where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable Incredulity, He is never required to close his mind to the truth. " It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect. " ( 10 ) THE first and second submissions of counsel for the petitioner are being taken together. Sri sankatha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, has emphasised that since the Will dated 17th december, 1979 was proved by both the attesting witnesses, the same cannot be held to be not proved merely on the statement of Ram Shanker Nai and further there were no suspicious circumstances which may lead to any finding that Will was not proved. ( 11 ) BEFORE further considering the submissions any further, it is relevant to note the facts and attending circumstances in which the Will is claimed to be executed. There is no dispute regarding relationship of the parties. Dharam Pal Singh died leaving his widow, Ram Pyari, and two married daughters. The petitioner is brothers son of Dharam Pal Singh, deceased. In the execution of the Will, the petitioner took active part and one of the witnesses of the petitioner, namely, Daya Ram, himself has admitted that petitioner along withDaya Ram and Suraj Bali went to Allahabad with Dharam Pal Singh for execution of the sale deed. When the propounder of the Will actively participated in the execution, it is for propounder to prove the due execution. When the propounder of the Will actively participated in the execution, it is for propounder to prove the due execution. The Apex Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengars case (supra) laid down that if it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will and has received substantial benefit under it, that Itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. The contesting respondent in her objection filed before the Consolidation officer under Section 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 took the case that Will was never executed by Late Dharam Pal Singh and he never went to Allahabad for execution of Will. It was categorically stated that Dharam Pal Singh was ill prior to his death and always went out either with his wife or daughter or son-in-law. It has come on the evidence on record that at the time of death, Dharam Pal Singh was about 75 years old. In the written statement categorically it was stated that Will was got executed through Ram Shanker Nai whose thumb impressions were obtained on the document and on the registers before the Sub-Registrar, Chail, Allahabad. Ram shanker Nai himself has appeared in the witness box and clearly proved the case taken by the defendant in the written statement. Ram Shanker Nai has deposed that he was taken to Allahabad on the pretext of getting correction of his name with regard to certain land and was asked to put his thumb impression and he went in the office of Sub-Registrar and put his thumb impressions in the documents in which both Surajball and Daya Ram have signed. In the statement, the said witness, after seeing the Ext. Ka-1 (Will dated 17. 12. 1979) stated that this document contains his thumb impression and this is the same document in which he put his thumb impression. The categorical case on behalf of the contesting respondent was that Will was never executed by dharam Pal Singh. ( 12 ) SRI Sankatha Rai has much emphasised that in view of the endorsement made by the sub-Registrar, the due execution has to be presumed. He has placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Misri Lal and Anr. ( 12 ) SRI Sankatha Rai has much emphasised that in view of the endorsement made by the sub-Registrar, the due execution has to be presumed. He has placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of this Court in Misri Lal and Anr. v. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 1955 All 573. Reliance has also been placed by counsel for the petitioner on Smt. Chinmoyee Sana v. Debendra Lal Saha, AIR 1985 Cal 349 and Alok Kumar Aich v. Ashok Kumar Aich and Ors. , air 1982 Cal 599 . Sri Rai, relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Major Singh v. Rattan singh (dead) and Ors. , (1997) 3 SCC 546 , has further contended that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of C. P. C. can look into the findings of Courts below regarding suspicious features of the Will and interfere with the finding. ( 13 ) THE endorsement of Sub-Registrar on a document do raises a presumption for execution of a document in a manner as claimed. However, in the present case, the defence taken was that dharam Pal Singh, the person who said to have put his thumb impression, never went before the sub-Registrar and thumb Impressions were of Ram Shanker Nai. The presumption with regard to registration and execution of document does not help in the present case the petitioner since very execution by Dharam Pal was challenged. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Misri lals case (supra) was in a case in which the Sub-Registrar who has made endorsement, has stated that executants were all personally known to him. In that judgment itself, in paragraph 6, it was held that where the proof of execution depends on circumstances other than the admission of execution by the executants, such as due attestation or identity of the executants who appeared before the Sub-Registrar, the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar may not be sufficient proof of the execution of the deed. ( 14 ) THE judgments in Smt. Chinmoyee Sahas case (supra) and in Alok Kumar Aichs case (supra), relied by counsel for the petitioner were the cases in which the Court considered the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will and after considering the facts of each case held that suspicious circumstances were there or not. ( 14 ) THE judgments in Smt. Chinmoyee Sahas case (supra) and in Alok Kumar Aichs case (supra), relied by counsel for the petitioner were the cases in which the Court considered the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will and after considering the facts of each case held that suspicious circumstances were there or not. The suspicious circumstances depend on facts of each case and no universal principle of general applicability can be laid down for application in each case. ( 15 ) THE judgment of Apex Court in Major Singhs case (supra) was a case where execution of the will was not disputed and only question was whether the Will came to be executed in the normal circumstances. In that case, the High Court interfered with the findings of Courts below regarding the suspicious features of the Will. In the present case the execution of Will itself is disputed and seriously challenged. ( 16 ) THE counsel for the petitioner contended that all such circumstances which have been referred to and relied by appellate court and revislonal court were, in fact, nonexistent and irrelevant. From a perusal of the Judgment of appellate court and revisional court, it is clear that appellate court and revisional court both have referred to several circumstances relying on which it was held that Will was not executed by Dharam Pal Singh. The statement of Ram Shanker Nai that it was who, who put the thumb impression has been heavily relied by both the Courts. The revisional court has clearly stated that when Ram Shanker Nai in his statement clearly stated that the Will contains his thumb impression and it was he who put his thumb impression and no efforts were made by the petitioner to remove or disprove the said circumstances also was relevant factor which has rightly been relied by both the Courts below. The revisional court has further held that there is contradiction in the statement of Surajbali and Daya Ram. The statement of both the witnesses in mutation proceeding is at variance with the statement made before the consolidation court. The revisional court has specially noted the statement of aforesaid two witnesses regarding illness and health of Dharam Pal Singh, deceased. The revisional court has further held that there is contradiction in the statement of Surajbali and Daya Ram. The statement of both the witnesses in mutation proceeding is at variance with the statement made before the consolidation court. The revisional court has specially noted the statement of aforesaid two witnesses regarding illness and health of Dharam Pal Singh, deceased. ( 17 ) THE submission of counsel for the petitioner that in Will father-in-law of petitioner was one of the witnesses is not a suspicious circumstance may be correct but, i. e. , not the fact which has been relied by the Courts below in holding the Will not proved. Both, appellate court as well as revisional court, have recorded concurrent finding holding the Will not proved. This Court under article 226 of the Constitution will not appreciate the evidence and record its own finding. The findings recorded by appellate court as well as revisional court cannot be said to be perverse and based on no evidence. The Courts below have relied on evidence on record on arriving at the finding that the Will was not proved. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that all such suspicious circumstances which have been relied by Courts below were Irrelevant cannot be accepted. The statement of Ram Shanker Nai who has clearly stated that it is he who put the thumb impression and he was taken by petitioner to Allahabad on the pretext of some other work and was made to sign the document is a weighty evidence which cannot be said to be Irrelevant. I do not find any error in the findings recorded by Courts below that the Will was not proved. ( 18 ) NOW coming to the last submission of counsel for the petitioner that even Will is not proved since at the time of death of Ram Pyari, the father of petitioner was alive, he will inherit under section 171 of U. P. Zamindart Abolition and Land Reforms Act is to be considered. Sri sankatha Rai further contended that Will in favour of respondent No. 3 was not proved. The categorical finding has been recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that Will executed in favour of respondent No. 3 has been proved by one of the witnesses, namely Ram Sukh. The fact that Will was unregistered does not make any difference. Sri sankatha Rai further contended that Will in favour of respondent No. 3 was not proved. The categorical finding has been recorded by Settlement Officer of Consolidation that Will executed in favour of respondent No. 3 has been proved by one of the witnesses, namely Ram Sukh. The fact that Will was unregistered does not make any difference. From the Judgment of consolidation Officer it also appears that before the Consolidation Officer while deciding issue no. 3, in fact, execution of Will in favour of respondent No. 3 was not disputed or challenged. In view of execution of Will by Ram Pyari in favour of respondent No, 3, the succession will govern on the basis of Will and the contention of counsel for the petitioner that Jang Bahadur will succeed under Section 171 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be accepted. ( 19 ) THE judgment relied by counsel for the respondents, Rani Purnima Debi and Anr. v. Kumar khagendra Narayan Deb and Anr. , AIR 1962 SC 567 , do support the contention of counsel for the respondents that the fact that petitioner got the whole benefit under Will subject to maintenance of wife and petitioner took part in the execution of the Will was a suspicious circumstance which is required to be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment, which is relevant for the purpose, are extracted below : "7. Let us now turn to the facts relating to the execution of this Will. We have already pointed out that the High Court was of the view that there were suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will and that it was an unnatural Will. The testator left behind him his widow and his married daughter (who are appellants before us) and an unmarried sister who was dependent upon him. Besides these, the testator had a number of other relations who were much nearer to him than the respondent. Even, if we leave out of account the married daughter and the other nearer relations, the widow and the sister were certainly expected to be properly provided for by the testator. It is not in dispute that the relations between the testator and his wife and sister were good. In these circumstances we should have expected something better than what is provided in the Will for these two. It is not in dispute that the relations between the testator and his wife and sister were good. In these circumstances we should have expected something better than what is provided in the Will for these two. All that the Will says is that the wife and the sister would be suitably maintained by the respondent during their life-time. No amount is specified which should be given to these two ladies as maintenance and no charge is created on the properties left by the testator which were considerable. In effect the two ladies were left to the tender mercies of the respondent in the matter of their maintenance. Further the result of this Will is that the daughter would be completely disinherited. The testator had a number of children but all had died many years before and only one daughter was alive at the time of his death. She was married and on behalf of the propounder it is said that the relations between the testator and her husband were not very happy. The evidence, however, does not show that the relations between the testator and his son-in-law were particularly strained at the time of the execution of the Will. In any case there is no satisfactory evidence to show that relations between the testator and his daughter were bad, even if the relations between him and his son-in-law were not of the best. In the circumstances we should have expected the testator to make some provision for the daughter, particularly when it is said that she was not well-off. There is no doubt therefore that the Will is most unnatural and that is a suspicious circumstance, which must be satisfactorily explained before the respondent can get-letters of administration. " "8. Another suspicious circumstance is that the respondent gets the sole benefit under the will subject to the maintenance of the wife and the sister and he was certainly taking part in the execution of the Will on the date it was executed. In such circumstances the respondent was required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. Whether he has done so or not will be considered by us later. " ( 20 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Courts below. ( 21 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Whether he has done so or not will be considered by us later. " ( 20 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Courts below. ( 21 ) THE writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.