JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The parties, in both the writ petitions, are same, and both the writ petitions have been heard together at the request of both the parties, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner Prahlad and the respondent Ganga Ram, both were sons of Malli Ahir. Ganga Ram went in adoption to Prabahti on 20.12.1956. Malli died on 26.12.1978. A registered Will was executed by Malli in favour of Ganga Ram on 27.05.1977. After the death of Malli the petitioner Prahalad, instituted a suit for declaration and injunction before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaman, District Bharatpur on 31.01.1979 in respect of disputed land. The respondent Ganga Ram also filed a separate suit for declaration and injunction. Both the suits were consolidated and decided by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kama by a common order dated 19.01.2001. The suit filed by Prahlad was dismissed and the suit filed by Ganga Ram was decreed. Being aggrieved with the same, Prahlad filed two separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority, and both the appeals were dismissed by a common order dated 21.07.2003. Thereafter, Prahalad filed two separate second appeals before the Board of Revenue, which were also dismissed by a common orderdated 01.08.2003. The aforesaid litigation in between both the parties was in respect of land bearing Khasra Numbers 4950, 4951, 4952, 4953 and 4954 measuring 9 bigha and 4 biswa. The orders passed by the Revenue Courts below in this regard is under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5431 of 2003. 4. Similarly, both the parties also filed two separate suits against each other before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaman in respect of separate agricultural land bearing Khasra Numbers 4717, 4718, 4719, 4720, 4721, 4722 and 4723. Both the suits were consolidated. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaman vide its order dated 19.03.2001 dismissed the suit of Prahalad, but decreed the suit of Ganga Ram. Being aggrieved with the same, Prahlad preferred two separate appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority, and both were dismissed by a common judgment and order dated 27.04.2002. Thereafter, Prahalad preferred two second appeals before the Revenue Board, which were dismissed by a common order dated 22.05.2002. The said orders of the Revenue Courts below are under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4486 of 2002. 5. Thereafter, Prahalad preferred two second appeals before the Revenue Board, which were dismissed by a common order dated 22.05.2002. The said orders of the Revenue Courts below are under challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4486 of 2002. 5. It is relevant to mention here that the suit filed by Ganga Ram in Writ Petition No.4486 of 2002 was based on registered Will, alleged to have been executed in his favour by Malli in the month of May, 1977, whereas another suit filed by Ganga Ram, which is a subject matter of Writ Petition No.5431 of 2003 was based on the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court in his favour. 6. The suit filed by Ganga Ram, based on registered Will in his favour was contested by Prahalad on the ground that so-called Will is forged one. 7. It is also relevant to mention here that Prahlad also filed a separate suit in the Civil Court for cancellation of registered Will dated 27.05.1977 executed by Malli in favour of Ganga Ram on the ground that it is forged one. However, as informed by both the parties, the said suit has been dismissed by the Civil Court, but an appeal was preferred by Prahlad before the First Appellate Court, along with an application for temporary injunction, which was dismissed, and thereafter Prahlad preferred S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4460 of 2007 before this Court challenging the order rejecting his application for temporary injunction. The said miscellaneous appeal was dismissed by this Court on 04.02.2008, wherein this Court also considered a fact that this Court in the present two writ petitions have passed an order of status-quo,therefore, there is no need to pass any further stay order. This Court while dismissing the C.M.A. No.4460 of 2007, observed as under : "In view of the fact that this Court has already granted an order of injunction directing the parties to maintain status-quo there is no further need, in my opinion, for the grant of any further order regarding injunction in this behalf. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed". 8. This appeal, therefore, is dismissed summarily. The stay application also stands dismissed". 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the Courts below have decreed the suit of Ganga Ram on the basis of alleged Will dated 27.05.1977, which has already been challenged by the petitioner in the Civil Court by way of separate suit for cancellation of the said Will, therefore, the Courts below have committed an illegality in decreeing the suit, as the Courts below had no jurisdiction to examine the validity of the Will, alleged to have been executed by Malli in favour of Ganga Ram. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment passed by the Courts below are liableto be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Courts below have not only decreed the suit of Ganga Ram on the basis of the Will executed in his favour, but the other facts have also been taken into consideration. He further submits that all the three Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in favour of Ganga Ram, therefore, this Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in the same, as this Court should not act as an Appellate Court and the Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the orders passed by the Courts below, which needs any interference by this Court. He further contended that so far as the validity of Will is concerned, the Civil Court has already seized with the matter. The civil suit filed by the petitioner Prahlad has already been dismissed by the Civil Court and an appeal in this regard is pending before the First Appellate Court, therefore, the petitioner may agitate the matter in this regard in his appeal pending before the First Appellate Court and this writ petition should be dismissed. He also contended that so far writ petition No.5431/2003 is concerned, the suit filed by Ganga Ram was notbased on "will", therefore, the said writ petition may be dismissed summarily without any observation, in view of concurrent finding of the Courts below. 10. He also contended that so far writ petition No.5431/2003 is concerned, the suit filed by Ganga Ram was notbased on "will", therefore, the said writ petition may be dismissed summarily without any observation, in view of concurrent finding of the Courts below. 10. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is agitating the matter regarding validity of "Will" in his appeal before the First Appellate Court filed by him against the rejection of his suit for cancellation of the "Will dated 27.05.1977", but his only problem is that his application for temporary injunction filed, along with the appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and this Court did not entertain his Civil Miscellaneous Appeal for grant of stay only on the ground that the stay order is being operated in his favour in these two writ petitions, therefore, either the stay order should be continued during the pendency of the first appeal or at least he may be given a liberty to file second stay application before the First Appellate Court, and an observations may be given directing the First Appellate Court to consider his second stay application afresh on merits without being influenced by any order of the Revenue Court or order of this Court passed in this writ petition. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and examined the impugned orders passed by all the three Courts below, in both the writ petitions in the light of their submissions. 12. Both the parties i.e. Prahlad and Ganga Ram, were sons of Malli. Ganga Ram went in adoption to Prabhati on 20.12.1956. Malli died on 26.12.1978. Malli had executed a registered Will in favour of Ganga Ram in respect of land, which is a subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4486 of 2002. There was a compromise decree in favour of Ganga Ram in respect of land, which is a subject matter of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5431 of 2003. 13. So far the "Will dated 27.05.1977" is concerned, the same has already been challenged by Prahlad in civil suit before the Civil Court. The suit has been dismissed, but an appeal in this regard is pending before the First Appellate Court. 13. So far the "Will dated 27.05.1977" is concerned, the same has already been challenged by Prahlad in civil suit before the Civil Court. The suit has been dismissed, but an appeal in this regard is pending before the First Appellate Court. The stay application, filed with the appeal has been dismissed, and the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred against that order before this Court has also been dismissed observing that the stay order is already going-on in favour of Prahlad in these writ petitions. 14. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also the findings recorded by the Revenue Courtsbelow, I find that all the Courts below have decreed the suit filed by Ganga Ram and rejected the suit filed by Prahlad, and I do not find any factual or legal error in the said orders so as to interfere with them while sitting in extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, I would like to grant a liberty to Prahlad to move second stay application in his appeal pending before the First Appellate Court, and the said Court will consider the same independently without being influenced by any observation of the Courts below. 15. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner Prahlad to move second stay application in his Civil First Appeal pending before the Additional District Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur, and the said Court is directed to examine the second stay application filed by the petitioner, independently on merits without being influenced by any observation of this Court in this writ petition as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4460 of 2007. The findings recorded by the Courts below with regard to the "Will", will not come in the way of the First Appellate Court while considering the second stay application filed by Prahlad. It is needless to mention here that the aforesaid observations willalso apply while deciding the Civil First Appeal also. 16. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, both the writ petitions are dismissed summarily with no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******