Prakash Krishna, J.- Brahma Nand, petitioner, Prem Raj, respondent no.2, Banarsi Dass, respondent no.3 and Nand Ram (deceased) were four brothers. Nand Ram was the youngest one, who has died. The dispute is with regard to the succession and inheritance of the property left by Nand Ram. 2. Nand Ram was serving in an educational institution at Hapur. The petitioner herein set up a Will dated 17th of November, 1976 allegedly executed by Nand Ram in his favour. Nand Ram expired on 10th of December, 1976 and the Will was got registered on 4th of January, 1977. 3. The other brothers namely Prem Raj and Banarasi Dass disputed the alleged Will dated 17th of November, 1976 in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 3rd of July, 1980 and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by his order dated 24th of September, 1980 held that the Will of Nand Ram in favour of the petitioner is proved. These two orders/ judgments were challenged in revision no.2547 before the Deputy Directed of Consolidation, Ghaziataad who by the impugned order dated 9th of July, LCD Brahmanand v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Prakash Krishna, J.) 195 1981 allowed the revision on the finding that the petitioner herein could not explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in dispute. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in rejecting the Will is vitiated. In support of the Will he submits that the testator was residing with the petitioner at the time of his death and he had made the petitioner's son, Yatindra Prasad as his nominee in the service record. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the testator was youngest among his brothers and there was no occasion for him to execute the Will in question at the age of forty five years. The attesting witnesses examined by the petitioner has not proved the execution of the Will. No reason has been assigned as to why the other brothers were excluded with regard to the succession of the deceased. 7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The attesting witnesses examined by the petitioner has not proved the execution of the Will. No reason has been assigned as to why the other brothers were excluded with regard to the succession of the deceased. 7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It appears that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation were very much influenced by the fact that Nand Ram had very good relation with the petitioner and that is why the petitioner's son Yatindra Prasad was made nominee in the service record of the testator. It is acknowledged legal position that a nominee is entitled to collect the dues of the deceased, but it does not mean that the said proceeds exclusively will belong to the nominee. The said proceeds will got to the legal heirs of the deceased as per law of inheritance. Therefore, the circumstance that the petitioner's son was made nominee is not indicative of the fact that the testator wanted to exclude his other brothers. It may be that the testator and petitioner were residing at Hapur while the two other brothers, the respondents were residing in the village. It has come in evidence that the testator used to make frequent visits of his native village wherein his other brothers were residing. The nomination in favour of the petitioner's son appears to have been made just to facilitate the collection of funds in the event of death as the petitioner was residing at Hapur, and not more than that. 9. Coming to the question of execution of the Will, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has found that the attesting witness Jai Ram has not supported the execution of the Will. The witness has not signed on the every page of the Will. Apart from the above, one Chetan Prakash took active part in drafting and typing of the Will in question. He was involved in a criminal case relating to forgery and fabrication of document although was discharged subsequently. 10. The circumstance which weigh heavily against the execution of the Will is the tender age of the testator at the time of the Will. In the Will it is mentioned that he was divorcee and was aged about 45 years. He was involved in a criminal case relating to forgery and fabrication of document although was discharged subsequently. 10. The circumstance which weigh heavily against the execution of the Will is the tender age of the testator at the time of the Will. In the Will it is mentioned that he was divorcee and was aged about 45 years. A person of such tender age does not expect death unless there is some special circumstance like incurable ailment which may lead to early death. Normally, at the age of forty five years it is not expected from such a person to execute a will. There was no occasion for him to execute a will. He was not suffering with any dreadful disease which could cause apprehension in one's mind about premature or early death. 11. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has examined the matter in depth and has taken into consideration all the relevant attending facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The view taken in the impugned order is plausible one. Even if there may be two views, a Writ cannot be issued in such cases. Writ petition stands on a different footing than appellate jurisdiction. 13. In absence of any special circumstance for disinheriting the respondents, it is not proved that the testator intended to disinherit his other brothers. Substantial justice has been done. All the brothers would inherit the property left by the deceased in equal shares. 14. I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.