JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—This matter was taken up in the revision of list. 2. Heard Sri K.S. Chauhan, learned advocate in support of this petition. No body appears for the respondents. 3. Challenge is to the judgment of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, appellate authority and that of the Consolidation Officer by which claim of petitioner to the land in dispute has been rejected. 4. Proceedings are under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act which is in respect to adjudication of dispute of title/right between the parties. 5. The question involved in this petition is that although properties in dispute are neither mentioned in the body of the will nor in the schedule but other properties are mentioned in the body and schedule of the document, then whether non-mentioned properties in the document has to pass on the claimant/petitioner or not ? 6. On brief narration of facts, about which there may not be any dispute, the petition can be conveniently disposed of. 7. In the basic year record, Laxmi Narain Srivastava and others were recorded. We are concerned with the property which is said to have been left by Luxmi Narain Srivastava. Petitioner filed objection under Section 9-A(2) of UPCH Act claiming land in dispute on the ground that there is registered will in his favour dated 27.2.1970 and on that basis, he is entitled to succeed the land in dispute besides other properties which are mentioned in the schedule of the will. Claim of petitioner was resisted by respondents on the ground that firstly, execution of the will by deceased, is not an act with sane mind rather he was not in a fit mental status to execute the will. It was then claimed that by will in question, as the land in dispute is not mentioned therein, petitioner is not to succeed rather respondents being natural heirs of the deceased, they are to succeed. Copy of the will was filed. Witnesses were examined from both sides. Consolidation Officer rejected the petitioner’s objection and that was approved by the appellate authority and the revisional Court and thus to challenge concurrent findings recorded by all three Courts, this petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 8. Copy of the will was filed. Witnesses were examined from both sides. Consolidation Officer rejected the petitioner’s objection and that was approved by the appellate authority and the revisional Court and thus to challenge concurrent findings recorded by all three Courts, this petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 8. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although in the will which the basis of claim, property in dispute is not specifically mentioned either in the body of will or in the schedule, but at certain places executor of will has stated the petitioner to be heir and he is to receive all movable and immovable property belonging to him and therefore, will has to be accepted to include the land in dispute even not so specifically mentioned in the body of will or in the schedule of the will. Argument is that there is no pleading by respondents that disputed property being not included in the schedule, petitioner will not get the same. It was then submitted that will is not transferred rather it is to change the order of succession and therefore, as the executor has mentioned that he has brought the petitioner with him and has taken his care, he is to be the heir. In the last, it was again submitted that in the middle of the document, there is a mention about succession to the petitioner of all his properties, land in dispute is to treated to be included therein. In support of the submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Section 88 of the Succession Act besides two decisions, which are said to be on the point. Reference is given to the decision of N. Kasturi v. D. Ponnammal, AIR 1961 SC 1302 ; 1966 RD 174. 9. In view of aforesaid, this Court has to decide the claim of parties. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that it is a case where property claimed to be bequeathed by will is not mentioned in the document. It is not a case that after mention of the fact that I bequeathe my all movable and immovable property, things are silent in respect to the detail of property. Rather, it is a case where in spite of mention of the fact noted above, executor has mentioned in the schedule, 3 kinds of properties. It is not a case that after mention of the fact that I bequeathe my all movable and immovable property, things are silent in respect to the detail of property. Rather, it is a case where in spite of mention of the fact noted above, executor has mentioned in the schedule, 3 kinds of properties. Emphasis of learned Counsel is on the word “Entire movable and immovable property is to pass”. Thus, we are to examine this aspect. 11. If the argument of learned Counsel is accepted then Court will be going into wisdom and wishes of the testator of the will although, he is not present in the Court, rather he is no more. On the death of that person so far his inner will/wisdom is concerned that has gone with him and we are not in a position to look into or go behind that desire as the Court has no means to ascertain that. We are to depend on whatever is mentioned in the document, we are not to import/insert/include something which is otherwise not mentioned in the document. Court may not be right in inserting a single word in the registered document by imagination or by anticipating or presuming desire of the deceased. If the testator was of the view that all property which he owns, irrespective of that being situated at any place in any district, anywhere, is to go/is to pass on the legatee, then mentioning of the word that my all movable and immovable property would go to him, would suffice. There appears to be no reason why after mentioning that fact on which Sri Chauhan, learned Counsel puts emphasis, the schedule specifically mentions only three set of properties. There appears absolutely no explanation for this. In fact, explanation can be said to be otherwise which is in the opening part of the document. Testator has clearly mentioned the properties which he is to pass to the petitioner to be his self acquired/exclusive properties and it has been further said that joint Hindu family, has no concern with this property as this was acquired of his own sources. This makes all kind of clarity in the thought that whatever property is exclusively owned by testator, that has to pass on the petitioners’ side. This makes all kind of clarity in the thought that whatever property is exclusively owned by testator, that has to pass on the petitioners’ side. Besides mentioning three set of properties in the schedule, in the body of documents, testator has mentioned property i.e. Movable and immovable which he owned at Lucknow. There is absolutely no whisper in respect to any other property which is otherwise owned and he intended to pass on the petitioner. Normal/natural rule of construction of document can be that if there is no mention of any specific property either in the body or in the schedule and it is just simply said that my all property is to pass on the person concerned, then certainly whatever property is owned by that person has to pass. Apart from the properties mentioned in the schedule, there is specific mention of certain property in the body of document. As observed above, reason was given in the body of document that those properties were exclusively owned by the testator. As there is a clear mention, no other member of the family has any concern. That makes a sense. So far as land in dispute is concerned, admittedly, that was recorded in the name of other members of the family also and thus, otherwise, on the death of deceased, normal succession is to follow. 12. So far as Section 88 of the Succession Act is concerned, that clearly speaks that where two clauses in a Will are irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, the last shall prevail. Here is the document in which, even if it is found that there are two clauses which may be inconsistent to each other, the last clause of the document i.e. schedule in respect to three set of properties, that is to prevail besides specific mention of another property which is mentioned in the body of document itself. 13. So far as judgment given in the case of N. Kasturi (supra), Apex Court has held that if two constructions are reasonably possible and one of them avoids, intestacy while the other involves intestacy, the Court would certainly justified in preferring that construction which avoids intestacy. Here that is not the situation. There is no such occasion and on the fact, decision on which reliance has been placed, has no application. Here that is not the situation. There is no such occasion and on the fact, decision on which reliance has been placed, has no application. So far as other judgment given in the case of Pitam and others, suffice it say that on bare reading of the decision, this Court do not find that it was a case where in the schedule, various properties are mentioned, but for the land in dispute which was the subject matter of writ petition. The only observation in that judgment is that non-mention of property in the schedule will not matter, cannot be interpreted that non-mention of property in dispute in the schedule, may not matter. We do not know that in the decision on which reliance has been placed, certain properties were mentioned in the schedule and some property was not mentioned. Here we are faced with the situation that some of the properties are mentioned in the schedule and land in dispute is not mentioned therein and thus, this decision also on which reliance has been placed, has no application to the facts of the present case. 14. All the three Courts have concurred and have taken view that property is neither mentioned in the schedule nor is mentioned in the body of will and thus is not to pass on the petitioner. This Court is also of the view that things which are not mentioned in the body of will or in the description/detail of the property which are in the schedule, cannot be substituted/added/inserted just by presuming the desire and wishes of the deceased. All properties should have been mentioned in the schedule or in the body of the will or no property was required to be mentioned in the body of will or in the schedule. Both things cannot go together and thus, this Court is not to take any exception to the interpretation so placed by the Courts below to the document in question. Findings recorded by all three Courts are not found to be perverse. At this stage, one thing is to be further noticed that in respect to some property which is mentioned in the schedule, petitioner obtained gift deed also in favour of his son and daughters in the year 1970, obviously under some fear or apprehension. Findings recorded by all three Courts are not found to be perverse. At this stage, one thing is to be further noticed that in respect to some property which is mentioned in the schedule, petitioner obtained gift deed also in favour of his son and daughters in the year 1970, obviously under some fear or apprehension. Be that as it may, that is not to further improve or worsen the situation and for analysis as made above, things cannot take any further turn. 15. For the reasons given above, this Court is not to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and thus, will have to decline to issue the writ as prayed. 16. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. ————