Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. This is an unfortunate case which has taken 37 years for decision in relation to the shares claimed by the parties. 4. There is no dispute about the following pedigree: Lamka @ Katta Idan Abdul Rozan Nazrul Hasan Ali Hasim Noor Mohd. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajjan Singh submits that had Idan intended his holding to be inherited by the heirs of Abdul, he would not have executed a will in favour of Nazrul and Rozan. It is also undisputed that the will was executed on 6th February 1945. Idan died issueless. After inheriting the property from Idan, Nazrul and Rozan bacame the tenure holders of the share of Idan. It is also undisputed that Nazrul died issueless. 6. The succession which has now to be determined is that which opens on the death of Nazrul. The fact that Abdul and Rozan are the real brothers of Nazrul and they were the only heirs entitled to succeed to the holding of Nazrul as he died intestate is evident. In such a situation, the share of Nazrul goes half and half to Abdul and Rozan respectively. The wish of Idan in his will has no relevance to the succession of Nazrul. 7. In view of this admitted pedigree and the shares aforesaid, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about not allowing Abdul's heirs to succeed is an irrelevant argument and therefore the finding recorded by all the authorities below cannot be disputed. The concurrent findings are to the effect that the Nazrul's property will be succeeded by the heirs of Abdul and Rozan both. There is no error in this finding. No other argument has been raised or pressed. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. _____________