JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 relates to the agricultural holding of Late Jalil Ahmad. The respondent No. 4 and husband of the petitioner undisputedly were real brothers. The respondent No. 4 claimed succession on the basis of a registered Will said to have been executed by Jalil Ahmad on 9.6.2000. Jalil Ahmad died on 1.8.2000. 3. The petitioner claimed that she was the legally wedded wife of Jalil Ahmad and she continued, as such, till the death of Jalil Ahmad and was, therefore, entitled to succeed to his holding. Two daughters had been born out of the said wed-lock, who were married during the life time of Jalil Ahmad. She also asserted that she has not remarried and, therefore, there was no occasion for Jalil Ahmad to have executed a Will in favour of respondent No. 4 only, to the exclusion of the natural heirs including the petitioner. 4. The matter was contested and the respondent No. 4 produced the attesting witnesses of the Will. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 18.6.2010 proceeded to record clear findings with regard to proving of the Will and the surrounding circumstances and held that respondent No. 4 was entitled to get his name recorded against the holding of Late Jalil Ahmad. The claim of succession by the petitioner No. 1 in terms of Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 was rejected. An appeal was filed against the same by the petitioner, which was dismissed upholding the order of the Consolidation Officer. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who also has dismissed the same upholding the findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer as affirmed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation and has also recorded his findings holding that the petitioner has lost of her rights to succeed to the holding of Late Jalil Ahmad. 5. Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had never divorced her husband and she had filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights in 1980, which was decreed. 5. Sri Dinesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had never divorced her husband and she had filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights in 1980, which was decreed. There was no re-marriage of the petitioner and, as such, she continued to be the widow of Jalil Ahmad and entitled to succeed in terms of Section 171 of the 1950 Act. 6. The second submission of Sri Rai is that the Will had not been proved in terms of Section 7 of the Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as it remains unexplained as to why the natural heirs were excluded by the testator of the Will and this unnatural circumstance was sufficient to discard the Will. He contends that mere production of the attesting witnesses was not sufficient to believe the genuineness and validity of the Will, which was executed allegedly a little less than 2 months before the death of the testator. He, therefore, submits that neither the Will was proved nor was there any circumstance to believe the execution of the Will. To the contrary, the Will was under a serious cloud and the same had not been removed by the respondent No. 4, as such, the Consolidation Officer committed an error in accepting the genuineness of the Will which finding is vitiated. The same has been affirmed by the appellate and the revising authority and, therefore, they also suffer from the same vice. 7. I have heard Sri Rai and perused the categorical findings recorded by the Consolidation Officer in relation to the statement given by Azhar Hasan and Maulvi Faizi Siddiqui, the two witnesses of the Will. Both of them have clearly and categorically stepwise explained the manner in which the Will came to be executed and the background and the circumstances which let to the exclusion of the Will. Issue Nos. 6 and 7 decided by the Consolidation Officer as affirmed in the appeal and again in revision, therefore, carry forward in detail every piece of relevant evidence to establish that the Will had been proved to the hilt in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The departure of the petitioner from the house of Late Jalil Ahmad was also indicated and which also stands reflected on account of the Suit filed by her. The departure of the petitioner from the house of Late Jalil Ahmad was also indicated and which also stands reflected on account of the Suit filed by her. The estrangement between Jalil Ahmad and the petitioner is also reflected by the fact that Jalil Ahmad had entered into a second marriage. In the circumstances, the cloud over the Will stood removed and it appears to have been executed to the exclusion of the petitioner with a clear intention coupled with the evidence of love and affection towards the respondent No. 4, who looked after Late Jalil Ahmad. In the aforesaid circumstances and the findings recorded concurrently by all the 3 Courts below, Late Jalil Ahmad had bequeathed his property in terms of Section 169 of the 1950 Act. If the Will has been proved and the property has passed on under the said instrument to the respondent No. 4, the claim of succession by the petitioner obviously stands excluded even if she is treated to be the heir under Section 171 of the Act. Nothing has been shown to the Court so as to interfere with the orders impugned. The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. ———————