JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and the order dated 20.3.2006 passed by opposite party No. 2. 2. Heard Shri A.K. Jauhari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nirmal Tiwari, Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri C.P. Tripathi assisted by Shri Birendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. 3. In brief the facts of the present case are to the effect that a dispute in the present case relates to Khata No. 112, 113, 114 situated at Village Gaura, Pargana & Tahsil Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow. 4. The property in dispute was owned by one Shri Ganesh Prasad s/o Shiv Balak and in order to resolve the controversy which is involved in the present case, it is appropriate to give a pedigree of Shri Ganesh Prasad which is as follows : Shiv Balak I Ganesh Prasad Shri Narain Jagat Narain Aditya Narain Kamlakant Laxmikant Ramakant Sashikant Umakant 5. After the death of Shri Ganesh Prasad s/o Shiv Balak, Shri Narain, Jagat Narain and Aditya Narain filed an objection on 20.6.1985 under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), inter alia, on the ground that the property in question should be recorded in the name of Shri Narain, Jagat Narain and Aditya Narain on the basis of general law of succession. 6. Another set of objection was filed by Shri Kamlakant and Shri Laxmikant (opposite party Nos. 4 and 5), claiming half share in Kata No. 112 and one fourth (¼) share in plot No. 1240/1 and plot No. 1411 (hereinafter referred as “property in dispute”) on the ground that a registered Will has been executed in their favour by late Shri Ganesh Prasad on 17.5.1985. 7. Consolidation Officer initially, vide order dated 26.3.2006, rejected the objection of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and directed to record the property in dispute in the name of son’s of deceased Ganesh Prasad. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Lucknow by order dated 21.11.2003 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer, opposite party No. 3, to decide afresh. 9. 8. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Lucknow by order dated 21.11.2003 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer, opposite party No. 3, to decide afresh. 9. On 23.11.2005 the opposite party No. 3 passed an order in favour of the sons of the deceased Shri Ganesh Prasad and held that the Will in question was fictitious one, thus rejected the claim of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. During the pendency of the proceedings the opposite party Shri Jagat Narain died and in his place the present petitioner and opposite party Nos. 7, 8 and 9 were substituted. 10. Order dated 23.11.2005 passed by opposite party No. 3 was challenged by opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 under Section 11(1) of the Act before Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation (opposite party No. 2) who allowed the appeal of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 vide order dated 20.3.2006. 11. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred a revision and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Camp at Unnao), Lucknow by the judgment and order dated 13.8.2009. 12. Order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and order dated 13.8.2009 passed by opposite party No. 1 are challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the following points : (a) Without any cogent reasons, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had set aside the findings of fact recorded by the opposite party No. 3 by means of the judgment and order dated 23.11.2005, as such the judgment and order passed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 dated 13.8.2009 and 20.3.2006 are contrary to the facts of the case, perverse in nature, thus arbitrary. (b) Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had failed to consider that Late Shri Ganesh Prasad was not in a position to execute the Will in question in favour of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 dated 13.8.2009 and 20.3.2006 are contrary to the facts of the case, perverse in nature, thus arbitrary. (b) Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 had failed to consider that Late Shri Ganesh Prasad was not in a position to execute the Will in question in favour of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5, in support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the pleadings as made in paragraph 12 of the writ petition which is quoted hereinbelow : “That learned Consolidation Officer, opposite party No. 3 also found that before execution of Will Ganesh Prasad was under treatment at Balram Pur Hospital for around twenty days and he died shortly after he discharged from the Hospital.” (c) Once the sons of Late Shri Ganesh Prasad, namely, Shri Narain, Jagat Narain and Aditya Narain were there, then there is no justification whatsoever on the part of Ganesh Prasad to execute Will in favour of his grand sons, namely, Kamlakant and Laxmikant. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. So far as the first submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same has got no force as from the perusal of the judgment and order dated 20.3.2006 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), it is crystal clear that the opposite party No. 2 had given a categorical finding to the effect that the Will was executed by Shri Ganesh Prasad and thereafter the same was presented by him before the Deputy Registrar for the purpose of registration on 17.5.1985. At the time of registration of the Will the marginal witnesses of the Will Shri Brij Kishore Pandey and Shri Prem Narain Misra were present and in addition to the said persons Shri B.K. Pandey and R.P. Awasthi were also present who had recognized the testator (Ganesh Prasad) and in their presence the Will was registered on 17.5.1985 in favour of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. 15. 4 and 5. 15. Further a categorical finding was also given by the opposite party No. 2 to the effect that Shri Prem Narain Misra who was one of the marginal witness of the Will, during his evidence, had recognized the Will and had further stated that the same was written by the testator in favour of opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and in addition to the above said facts Shri R.P. Awasthi, in whose presence the testator had executed and registered the Will dated 17.5.1985, had categorical stated that the Will in question was executed and registered in his presence by Shri Ganesh Prasad in the office of the Registrar, Lucknow who had presented the same for the purpose of registration to the Deputy Registrar. 16. Accordingly, in view of the said findings the opposite party No. 2 held that as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1862 the Will was proved. Further the said findings of fact had been confirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent No. 1) by means of the order dated 13.8.2009. 17. In the case of Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others, 1964(5) SCR 64 the Supreme Court has held as follows : “finding of fact cannot be challenged in a proceeding on the ground that the relevant and material evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding and that adequate or sufficiency of evidence or an inference of fact to be drawn from the evidence or finding of fact are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.” 18. In the case of State of West Bengal v. A.K. Shaw, AIR 1990 SC 2205 , the Supreme Court has observed : "that of quasi judicial Tribunal had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, those findings of fact would be binding on the High Court. By the process of judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact." 19. By the process of judicial review, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of fact." 19. In the case of Dharamraj and others v. Chhitan and others, 2007(102) RD 73, the Supreme Court has observed that : “It is now well settled law that in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction High Court is not supposed to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Consolidation authorities unless and until High Court concludes that such findings of fact are either perverse or based on no evidence.” 20. In the case of Bano v. State of U.P. through Collector, Bulandshar and others, 2008 (105) RD 645, this Court has held that : “the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is a finding of fact, and cannot call for any interference unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or based on no material.” 21. In the light of the above facts, the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are rejected. 22. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that late Sri Ganesh Prasad was not in position to execute the Will and in this regard he relied on paragraph 12 of the writ petition that at the time of execution of Will Shri Ganesh Prasad was under treatment in Balrampur, Hospital for about twenty days and he died shortly after he discharged from the Hospital are also unsustainable and untenable because the categorical finding of fact had been given by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in their order to the effect that the Will in question was presented by testator for the purpose of registration in the office of Registrar himself before Sub Registrar on 17.5.1985 and the said fact was further admitted/confirmed by Shri Prem Narain Misra, the marginal witness of the Will and by Shri R.P. Awasthi in whose presence the Will was executed and registered. 23. It is well settled proposition of law as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court that while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can set aside the findings of fact recorded by the Court below only when the same are contrary to the facts of the case and perverse in nature. However, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner fails to point out that the said findings of fact recorded by the respondents No. 1 and 2 were wrong, incorrect and perverse in nature. Thus, the second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force and are accordingly rejected. 24. So far as the third submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is to be remembered that the Will is the intention of the testator about distribution of his rights with an obvious intention not to go as an intestate, therefore, distribution to one of the heir is more and to other in less cannot be a good ground of unnaturality. It is also to be remembered that a Will is not intestate succession to be governed by any law of religious succession. Will is to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which prevails over the field unless, of course, it is hit by any statute. 25. In the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi, AIR 1954 SC 280 the Supreme Court held as under : “the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore the only issue in a probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the Court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve the original Will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the question of marking an application for probate, l grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the Probate Court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the Will. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the Will. Thus it does no more than establishes the factum of the Will and the legal character of the executor. Probate Court does not decide any question of title or of the existence of the property itself.” 26. In the case of Uma Devi Nambiar and others v. T.C. Sidhan (Dead), 2004 (2) SCC 321 the Supreme Court held as under : “A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pas to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, 1994 (Suppl.) RD 329 (SC), it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstance, the Court has to give effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. [See also Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba, 1973(3) SCC 291 ]. 27. In the case of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, 1996 (Suppl.) RD 119 (SC), it was observed : “that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly.” 28. In the case of Ajit Chandra Majumdar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar, AIR 1970 Cal 551, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held in paragraph 34 as follows : “34. The Will has been challenged on the grounds that it is an unnatural Will because the testator prefers one son to others. On the question of unnatural and officious Will a Court of probate has to act with great caution. The testator who has full testamentary powers and a disposing mind cannot be dictated by the Court as to what is a fair and an unjust disposition. The Will is the Will of the testator and he has, under the law, the freedom to give his property to whomsoever he likes. What strikes the Court as an eccentric or an unjust or an unnatural disposition can certainly be taken as a consideration on the main question of finding out whether the testator was acting as a free agent and with a sound disposing and understanding mind. But once it is established that the testator was free and had a sound disposing mind, then it is no longer the duty of the Court to go further to inject its own ethics of what is or is not a moral or a fair disposition according to the Court’s own standards. Judged by that test many a Will by a father depriving his sons would be unjust and indeed many a Will exhibits man’s iniquity against his nearest and dearest relations and yet not on that ground alone have those Wills been declared by this Court invalid. Such wrongs, however, grievous, are not for the temporal Courts of justice to correct and are better left to him who adjusts all wrongs and non justifiable iniquities, and under whose munificence the testator and the disinherited alike live and die.” 29. In view of the above said judicial pronouncement it is not disputed that the deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. In view of the above said judicial pronouncement it is not disputed that the deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly, as such the third submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also rejected. 30. When the above said submissions which were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of pleadings taken by him in the writ petition are rejected having no force then at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral arguments to the effect that the Will in question was executed in a suspicious circumstance as such the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 erred in upholding the Will and thereby passing the judgment in favour of the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and in this regard he relied on the following cases Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, 2009 AIR SCW 1338 and Gurdial Kaur and others v. Kartar Kaur and others, AIR 1998 SC 2861 . 31. Petitioner’s Counsel was asked to refer the pleading in the writ petition in support of his oral arguments but learned counsel for petitioner could not point out a single paragraph in the writ petition where the petitioner has challenged the findings of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 that Will in favour of contesting opposite parties had been executed a suspicious circumstances. 32. In view of the discussion made above, as there is no specific pleading in this regard in the writ petition thereby challenging the findings of opposite parties No. 1 and 2, the oral argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be entertained. Apex Court in the case of Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1988 SC 2181 has held that : “In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable.” 33. This Court in the case of Madhav Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda Camp and Mahoba, 2006(100) RD 774 where it was held that Petitioners Counsel was asked to refer the pleading in the writ petition in support of his oral arguments but learned counsel for petitioner could not point out a single paragraph in the writ petition where the petitioner has challenged the findings of Deputy Director of Consolidation that Will in favour of contesting opposite parties is proved. 34. Further, in the present case, as stated herein above, the Will in question was executed by Shri Ganesh Prasad who himself presented the same before the Sub-Registrar in the office of the Registrar Lucknow for the purpose of registration and thereafter the same was registered on 17.5.1985 and at the time of registration the marginal witnesses of the Will, namely, Shri Brijesh Kishore Pandey and Shri Prem Narain Misra and Shri B.K. Pandey and Shri R.P. Awasthi were also present and the said person had identified Ganesh Prasad who had executed the Will, the said facts were confirmed in oral evidence given by Sri Prem Narain Misra and Sri R.P. Awasthi when they were produced as witnesses in the matter in question before the Court below. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his oral arguments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his oral arguments are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. So, the oral argument which are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Will in question was executed in suspicious circumstances as such the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had erred in upholding the same and passing the judgment in favour of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 on the basis of Will has not go force and rejected. 35. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 36. No order as to costs. ————