Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the substituted petitioner, Sri R.R. Upadhya for the opposite parties and the learned standing counsel for quite some time. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.7.1985 as contained in annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Sultanpur and the order dated 15.11. 2000 as contained in annexure no. 6 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Raebareli, camp at Sultanpur. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by these orders and he says that finding of the Consolidation Officer has been upset. The reasoning given in the judgment of the Consolidation Officer has been rebutted by Settlement Officer, Consolidation, against the judgment of this Court as well as finding recorded by the Consolidation Officer. He argues that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation is unreasonable, based on conjuncture and surmises and incorrect interpretation of the Statute like Indian Evidence Act, Indian Succession Act and the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that one Badal died without any issue. The petitioner is claiming his right through will said to have been executed on 30.8. 1962 while opposite parties are claiming their right on the basis of inheritance. The pedigree is not disputed. The dispute is with regard to will. 5. It so happened that after the death of Badal, opposite parties got their names entered in form P.A. 11 while, the petitioner filed suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 6. The order was passed ex-parte by the Sub Divisional Officer, Musafirkhana in the said suit on 23.1.1967. This is a very short order running only in eight lines, which is as cursory and sketchy as it can be. It does not decide anything. The language of the order, itself, speaks that no notices were ever issued to the opposite parties. There is no question of hearing the opposite parties or giving them any opportunity of hearing. When the title is to be decided in a suit, the order only on the ground that no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, is not enough. The Sub Divisional Officer has not discussed anything in his order. He has, in fact, not decided or adjudicated upon any title on the basis of any document or any deed. The Sub Divisional Officer has not discussed anything in his order. He has, in fact, not decided or adjudicated upon any title on the basis of any document or any deed. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the ‘Will’ was produced before the Court but as we will see subsequently that no exhibit number was ever given to that will deed in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, who has not even discussed the will. He has simply said that since no one appears, the suit is decreed. This court can hardly agree with this kind of reasoning of the judgment. 7. However, recall/restoration application was moved against this order, which was rejected on 28.12.1978, on the ground that it was not accompanied by affidavit. This fact finds mention on page-41 of the writ petition and internal page-5 of the order passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The opposite parties preferred appeal before the Commissioner against this rejection order. During this period, notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, came into existence and accordingly proceedings in these Courts were abated. 8. Sri I.D. Shukla has submitted that the order was passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad on 28.11.1979 and it simple says that since the village has come under Consolidation operation, appeal along with the suit shall stand abated. 9. However, this order of abatement was never challenged by the petitioner. 10. However, Sri I.D. Shukla has forcefully argued that the suit could not have been abated and it was only the order rejecting the restoration that should have been abated in view of the full bench of the Board of Revenue in Mahabir and another vs. Mangal and others in reference No. 332ZC/ 1972-73 decided on March 3, 1981 and (five more judgments in the said judgments). 11. Sri I.D.Shukla, has put in great stress on the issue but for purposes of this case, it is not necessary to delve into this controversy at the moment. Since the order of the Addl. Commissioner remained unassailed and unchallenged, it becomes final and it can be safely said that the suit stood abated and the decree granted by S.D.O. has no force of law. Even otherwise in the manner in which S.D.O. had granted ‘decree’ does not satisfy the conscience of this Court. 12. Since the order of the Addl. Commissioner remained unassailed and unchallenged, it becomes final and it can be safely said that the suit stood abated and the decree granted by S.D.O. has no force of law. Even otherwise in the manner in which S.D.O. had granted ‘decree’ does not satisfy the conscience of this Court. 12. In any view of the matter when the case reached the consolidation Courts, there was no decree in favour of the petitioner. Consolidation courts were free to examine the authenticity of ‘Will’ which was the sole basis for the claim of the petitioner. The will has been proved by the petitioner on the strength of one witness namely Ram Khelawan, who was Hashiya Gawah (marginal witness). The consolidation Court has stated in his order that since there is ‘Will’, which stands proved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the basis of evidence of marginal witness, the petitioner, should be held to be beneficiary of the will. 13. However, when this order was challenged before Settlement Officer, Consolidation and later in revision before the Joint Director of Consolidation, this contention of the petitioner was not accepted. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation rejected the authenticity of the will on three grounds; firstly, the first page of the will does not contain signature of the writer; secondly that Ram Khelawan was interested witness and thirdly Badal was not conferred with transferable right, hence he did not have a right to execute the ‘Will’ in favour of anybody. 14. Further, one more argument has been developed that if the entries in favour of the opposite parties PA-11, were incorrect, the suit should have been filed in the Court of Tehsildar but the petitioner chose to file the suit under Section 229-B of the Act. The cumulative effect, according to Settlement Officer, Consolidation is that the ‘Will’ is not believe worthy and he has accordingly decided that unregistered ‘Will’ cannot be relied upon. 15. Sri I.D. Shukla has, however unsuccessfully, tried to contradict the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, on the ground that under Section 63-A of the Indian Succession Act, it has been provided that the Testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. He says that the word ‘writer’, which has been used by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation denotes that if the signature of the testator is not available on the first page, it will not matter. There is no finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the signature of testator was not there. It only says that the signature of writer was not available. Under the Act, the signature of testator was required and in absence of the finding of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, it cannot be taken as a ground for disbelieving the will deed. 16. A careful examination of the said section makes it abundantly clear that the testator has been conjoined by conjunction “or” other person. Grammatically these two words will be read interchangeably. The other person’s substitution as testator in this section is correct. When the Settlement Officer Consolidation says that writer’s signature was not there, it shall mean to say that the signature of the testator was not available. There is no ambiguity in this finding because the signature of the marginal witness is not available at page-1. It is not the case where the dispute is about signature between the testator and other person. It is the case where there is no signature at all; be it of other person or the testator. 17. The deed has to be read as comprehensive piece of document and one line here and there, cannot be interpreted to give meaning, which can not be attributed to the intention of the writer of the will. The allegation and the objection of the opposite parties is that first page has been changed and hence the signatures were not available. The finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is in this context. It is not in context of dispute between one testator and the other person, hence the Court comes to the conclusion that there was no signature of the testator or any other person or marginal witness at page no. 1. As already said this will deed was never numbered as exhibit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer. This is second ground to disbelieve the will. Thirdly, the Sub Divisional Officer has not relied upon the will. He has not even mentioned this will, which creates serious doubt about the existence of the will in favour of the petitioner. 1. As already said this will deed was never numbered as exhibit in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer. This is second ground to disbelieve the will. Thirdly, the Sub Divisional Officer has not relied upon the will. He has not even mentioned this will, which creates serious doubt about the existence of the will in favour of the petitioner. So far Ram Khelawan is concerned he has stated himself at page-60 internal page-7 of the revisional order, that Bhagwat Prasad had given evidence in favour of Ram Khewalan in a case, which was being fought between Ram Khelawan and Mangal Deik. The finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation that Ram Khelawan was grateful and interested witness, thus, cannot be faulted. The reasons given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be practical, pragmatic and can be relied upon. 18. Further, the finding of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation regarding unregistered will questioning its authenticity, and successfully demolishing the case of the petitioner, is agreed upon, by this Court. I do not find any reason to fault the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has affirmed the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 19. Before parting with this case, this Court puts a word of appreciation for respective parties’ counsel who have argued the matter very well and have rendered elaborate assistance to this Court. (Petition dismissed) _____________