JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the supplementary affidavit filed today. The undisputed pedigree is as follows: - Yusuf Ali Khan Nazira Begum Hazira Begum Bano Begaum Ahmadi Begum (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Widow) (Petitioner) (Respondent 5) (Respondent 4) (Respondent 6) The dispute relates to the holding of late Yusuf Ali Khan. He was survived by three daughters and a widow. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 on the ground that Yusuf Ali Khan had made an oral gift in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4-Bano Begum contested the matter on the basis of a will. Thus only two daughters were contesting the succession, and neither the widow Ahmadi Begum nor Hazira Begum the third daughter did put any contest in relation to the claim over the holding. The Consolidation Officer disbelieved the oral gift set up by the petitioner as also the will set up by the respondent no. 4. It is undisputed that after this finding was returned by the Consolidation Officer, including the finding in relation to the oral gift, the petitioner did not assail the same by filing any appeal. It is only the respondent no. 4 who questioned the correctness of the order of the Consolidation Officer in relation to the will set up by her. The Settlement Officer Consolidation allowed the appeal on 12th September, 2011 and a revision preferred by the petitioner against the same has been dismissed. Thus the claim of the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the will has been accepted by the authorities below. Sri R.C. Singh has submitted that the will was not proved and the attesting witness had not been able to carry further the claim set up by the respondent no. 4. Relying on the statement of the witness to the will he submits that the same does not in any way conform to the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the will having not been proved, the claim has been wrongly allowed by the appellate authority and affirmed in revision. It is also undisputed that the respondent no. 6 Smt. Ahmadi Begum, the widow of the tenure holder did not contest the claim of the respondent no. 4. It is also undisputed that the respondent no. 6 Smt. Ahmadi Begum, the widow of the tenure holder did not contest the claim of the respondent no. 4. She is represented before this Court by Sri P.K. Srivastava Advocate who has also supported the claim of the respondent no. 4. Having heard Sri R.C. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jauhari for the respondent no. 4 and Sri Srivastava for the respondent no. 6, the background in which the claim has been set up by the respondent no. 4, and the fact that the petitioner did not choose to file any appeal against the finding recorded on the issue of the oral gift set up by her, the petitioner cannot have any possible surviving claim. Apart from this, even applying the provisions of Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1952, if the will is not accepted, then too even the property goes to the respondent no. 6 widow of the tenure holder who is supporting the cause of the respondent no. 4. In such a situation, it is not necessary to examine the issues any further as the petitioner has failed to establish her case. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.