JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri D.S.P. Singh and Sri C.S. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.R. Sirohi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer (respondent-3) dated 28.11.1980, Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 18.09.2003 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 18.07.2013, passed in title proceedings, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to the land of basic consolidation year khata-2 of village Nakchhedpur, which was recorded in the name of Smt. Gujrati, khata-6 of village Ekla, which was recorded in the name of Smt. Champa (respondent-4) and khata-5 of village Belwariya, which was recorded in the names of Bipti wife of Baijnath, Baghiya, wife of Jamuna Mahraj and Jagrani wife of Birju (transferees of Smt. Champa (respondent-4). Ram Charittar Singh (now deceased and represented by the petitioner) and Ram Naresh Singh (the petitioner) filed objections (registered as Case Nos. 543/3400 to 3403) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of the recorded tenure holders and recording their names over the land in dispute as the heirs of Smt. Gujrati. It has been stated by the petitioner that land in dispute was their ancestral property and coming in their joint family from the time of Sujan Singh (common ancestor). Sujan Singh had two sons, namely Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh. Rakshpal Singh had two sons Mahadeo Singh and Dwarika Singh. Smt. Gujrati, recorded tenure holder, was the widow of Mahadeo Singh. Bhairo Singh had four sons, namely Ram Tawakal Singh, Vikrama Singh, Shiv Baran Singh and Harakhu Singh. The family of the two branches of Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh through out remained joint. About 60 years ago, Mahadeo Singh went to Bombay but he was neither returned nor was heard thereafter. Smt. Gujrati was a childless young woman as such sons of Bhairo got her name mutated over the land in dispute, in place of Mahadeo Singh. Dwarika Singh was unmarried, as such, he also surrendered his share in favour of Smt. Gujrati although the land in dispute was occupancy tenancy and surrender by Dwarika Singh was invalid. Amongst the four sons of Bhairo Singh, only the branch of Ram Tawakal was continuing and other sons died issueless. Dwarika Singh was unmarried, as such, he also surrendered his share in favour of Smt. Gujrati although the land in dispute was occupancy tenancy and surrender by Dwarika Singh was invalid. Amongst the four sons of Bhairo Singh, only the branch of Ram Tawakal was continuing and other sons died issueless. The applicants were grand son of Ram Tawakal. Share of Mahadeo Singh was inherited by Dwarika Singh and after death of Dwarika Singh, it was inherited by Harakhu son of Bhairo Singh. After the death of Harakhu, the applicants inherited the land in dispute as Smt. Gujrati had only life interest and died as a member of joint Hindu family. Kausik Singh was a teacher in Primary School and was posted in the village of the petitioner. He developed intimacy with their father Raj Kumar. He with malafide intention got the name of Smt. Champa recorded over some khatas after death of Gujrati although there is no lady of the name of Smt. Champa and it is merely a fake name. Smt. Champa had nothing to do with the land in dispute. 4. The objection of the petitioner was contested by Smt. Champa as well as her transferees. It has been stated by Smt. Champa that branches of Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh were separated long before 1291 F. The land in dispute was exclusively recorded in the name of Rakshpal Singh in 1291 F. After his death, it was recorded in the names of Mahadeo Singh and Dwarika Singh in 1307 F. Thereafter name of Smt. Gujrati widow of Mahadeo Singh was recorded since 1334 F. Dwarika Singh also surrendered his share in her favour through the deed dated 16.08.1945. Dwarika Singh died on 11.12.1945 and his cremation was performed by Smt. Gujrati. Had the petitioner or his father living jointly, it was improbable for a lady to perform cremation of her husband's brother. Smt. Basanti was the daughter of Smt. Gujrati, who was married to Kausik Singh and Vijay Bahadur was her son. Smt. Basanti and Vijay Bahadur were living with Smt. Gujrati through out her life, in her house and looking after her. Smt. Gujrati executed a registered will dated 10.09.1943 in favour of Vijay Bahadur, her daughter's son. Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958 and was inherited by Vijay Bahadur. Unfortunately, Vijay Bahadur also died on 02.07.1958 and was inheritted by his widow Smt. Champa. Smt. Gujrati executed a registered will dated 10.09.1943 in favour of Vijay Bahadur, her daughter's son. Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958 and was inherited by Vijay Bahadur. Unfortunately, Vijay Bahadur also died on 02.07.1958 and was inheritted by his widow Smt. Champa. After death of Smt. Gujrati, lekhpal of village Ekla and Belwariya mutated the name of Vijay Bahadur on the basis of PA 11 and after his death the name of Smt. Champa was also mutated in the revenue records of villages Ekla and Belwariya. The properties of village Belwariya was sold by Smt. Champa and the names of her transferees were mutated over it and objections of the petitioner were rejected. Smt. Basanti died on 03.07.1972. Smt. Champa Devi was the heir of Smt. Basanti. The petitioner is not the heir of Mahadeo Singh and Dwarika Singh. There was nothing on record to prove that Bhairo Singh was son of Sujan Singh. 5. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer (respondent-3). The petitioner examined Ram Naresh Singh (PW-1) Raghu Nandan Singh (PW-2) and Bechan (PW-3). The respondents examined Mahendra Narain (DW-1) (attesting witness of the will dated 10.09.1943), Mahadeo (DW-2), Mangla Prasad (DW-3) and Kausik Singh (DW-4). The parties also adduced their documentary evidence. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 28.11.1980, held that the name of Smt. Champa was mutated in the year 1958. Otherwise also Smt. Basanti was the daughter of Smt. Gujrati, which was proved from the recitals of the registered will dated 10.09.1943 and oral evidence of the witnesses as such she was preferential heir of Smt. Gujrati. The petitioner has been continuously litigating with Smt. Champa since 1958. The summons issued in the name of Smt. Champa were personally served on her by process servers time to time. From Pariwar Register, as well as the statements of the witnesses, it was proved that she was widow of Vijay Bahadur. No evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove that Harakhu was alive at the time of death of Smt. Gujrati. On these findings the objections of the petitioner were dismissed, by his order dated 28.11.1980. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 78/807/320) and one Shambhu Ram also filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 83/808/321) from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.11.1980. On these findings the objections of the petitioner were dismissed, by his order dated 28.11.1980. 6. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 78/807/320) and one Shambhu Ram also filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 83/808/321) from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 28.11.1980. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2), who by order dated 18.09.2003 held that Mahadeo Singh died between 1307 F to 1334 F and was inherited by Smt. Gujrati. Dwarika Singh also surrendered his share to Smt. Gujarati and died on 11.12.1945. Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958. From the registered will dated 10.09.1943 executed by Smt. Gujrati was it proved that Smt. Basanti was her daughter as such Smt. Basanti was her nearest heir. From the documentary as well as oral evidence on record, it was proved that Smt. Champa was the widow of Vijay Bahadur. The land in dispute was ocupancy tenancy as such inheritance would be governed by N.W.P Tenancy Act, 1901 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 and Hindu Law of succession would no apply. Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958 as such according to the provisions of 172 read with Section 171, Smt. Basanti will be her nearest heir. The petitioner was not the heir of Smt. Gujrati as his father died in the year 1937 while Gujrati died in the year 1958. On these findings the appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.09.2003. 7. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 791/233/301/186) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1), who by the order dated 18.07.2013, held that from the registered will dated 10.09.1943 executed by Smt. Gujrati it was proved that Smt. Basanti Devi was her daughter and Vijay Bahadur was her daughter's son. The petitioner have contested the mutation proceeding against Smt. Champa Devi in various cases, from which existence of Smt. Champa Devi was proved. From the khatauni 1291 F, it was proved that branches of Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh were separated. Even if, Smt. Gujrati had no right to execute of the will, after her death, Smt. Basanti, her daughter would inherit and after death of Smt. Basanti, Smt. Champa will inherit the land in dispute. From the khatauni 1291 F, it was proved that branches of Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh were separated. Even if, Smt. Gujrati had no right to execute of the will, after her death, Smt. Basanti, her daughter would inherit and after death of Smt. Basanti, Smt. Champa will inherit the land in dispute. As the land in dispute was occupancy tenancy as such inheritance would be governed by N.W.P Tenancy Act, 1901 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, under which the widow was the heir. The surrender deed dated 16.08.1943 executed by Dwarika Singh in favour of Smt. Gujrati was valid as Smt. Gujrati was co-tenure holder. On these findings the revision was dismissed by order dated 18.07.2013. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the consolidation authorities only on the basis of the will dated 10.09.1943 held that Smt. Basanti was daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur was her daughter;s son. Proof of the execution of a document cannot be taken as proof of the contents of a document as held in Kotiswar Mookerjee vs. Paresh Nath Mookerji AIR 1956 Cal. 205 and Ramakrishna Mohapatra vs. Gangadhar Mohapatra AIR 1958 Orissa 26. Smt. Gujrati inheritted only life interest under N.W.P Tenancy Act, 1901 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 and after her death, the property will revert to the heirs of her husband. As Harakhu Singh in the branch of the petitioner was alive at the time of death of Mahadeo Singh and Dwarika Singh as such after death of Smt. Gujrati, Harakhu Singh would inherit entire disputed land. The petitioner alone was the heir of Harakhu Singh as such would be heir of Smt. Gujrati. The will was written in 'Urdu'. It was admitted that Smt. Gujrati was an illiterate lady. The attesting witness has stated that will was read over to Smt. Gujrati in the same language in which it was written. He further admitted that he did not know as to whether Smt. Gujrati had understood the contents of the will, or not. As such, the contents of the will were not understood by Smt. Gujrati at the time of affixing thumb impression on it. The will was very old documents, it was never disclosed during life time of Smt. Gujrati. The will was procured by Kausik Singh, who was stranger to the family. As such, the contents of the will were not understood by Smt. Gujrati at the time of affixing thumb impression on it. The will was very old documents, it was never disclosed during life time of Smt. Gujrati. The will was procured by Kausik Singh, who was stranger to the family. Had the will come to the knowledge of Smt. Gujrati, during her life time, she would have certainly cancelled it. Identity of Smt. Champa Devi was challenged by the petitioner from very beginning even then Smt. Champa Devi did not appear in the witness box. Her identity has been wrongly presumed. The surrender deed dated 16.08.1943 executed by Dwarika Singh in favour of Smt. Gujrati was invalid and Smt. Gujrati would not get the share of Dwarika Singh on its basis. Orders of respondents-1 to 3 are illegal and are liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The first question raised by the petitioner is that due execution of the will dated 10.09.1943 was not proved. Under Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the will is required to be attested by two are more witnesses. Its due execution is required to be proved by at least one of the attesting witness, under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The respondent filed the original registered will dated 10.09.1943 executed by Smt. Gujrati and examined Mahendra Narain, attesting witness of the will, to had proved due execution and attestation of the will. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the will was written in 'Urdu' language and the witness has admitted that it was read over in the same language and he could not say that Smt. Gujrati had understood its contents before putting her thumb impressions on it or not as such it was not proved that Smt. Gujrati had understood the contents of the documents. The copy of the will has not been filed in the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner read the contents of the will during arguments in the Court. Most of the words of the will are of Hindi language. Some words of 'Urdu' language are also used in it, which is commonly known to the persons in India. The copy of the will has not been filed in the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner read the contents of the will during arguments in the Court. Most of the words of the will are of Hindi language. Some words of 'Urdu' language are also used in it, which is commonly known to the persons in India. If the entire will was read over to Smt. Gujrati then she would have understood that this was deed by which she wanted to give properties to her daughter's son Vijay Bahadur. Mere its writing in 'Urdu' transcript does not make it un-understandable by an illiterate woman, when it was read over before her. Thus, for the only reason that will was written in 'Urdu' and was read over in the same language, no inference can be drawn that Smt. Gujrati affixed her thumb impressions on the will without under standing its contents. Due execution of the will was proved in accordance with the law. Concurrent findings recorded by all the three consolidation authorities cannot be interfered by this Court. 10. The next point raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the proof of the execution of a document cannot be taken as proof of the contents of a document and consolidation authorities have committed illegality in holding that Smt. Basanti was daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur was her daughter's son, on the basis of the will dated 10.09.1943. Section 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. In this case, the original will was filed as such primary evidence was filed. Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expressed by conduct as to existence of such relationship of any person who as a member of family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject is relevant. Statement made in the will that Smt. Basanti was daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur was her daughter's son are also admissible in evidence under Section 32 (5) of the Evidence Act, 1872. In this case, Mahendra Narain, in his statement has stated that he had been Patwari of the village from 1921 to 1953. Statement made in the will that Smt. Basanti was daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur was her daughter's son are also admissible in evidence under Section 32 (5) of the Evidence Act, 1872. In this case, Mahendra Narain, in his statement has stated that he had been Patwari of the village from 1921 to 1953. He knew Smt. Gujrati and Smt Basanti, the daughter of Smt. Gujrati and her son Vijay Bahadur, who were residing along with Smt. Gujrati in her house. Mahendra Narain, being posted as Patwari of the village for a long time of about 32 years had special knowledge about the family relations of Smt. Gujrati and his statement was admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Kausik Singh, who was husband of Smt. Basanti also proved the relation. Certified copy of the death certificate of Smt. Gujrati was also filed in which Vijay Bahadur, who had cremated the dead body of Smt. Gujrati was noted as her daughter's son. Thus, there were various evidences on record to prove that Smt. Basanti was the daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur was son of Smt. Basanti. The contents of the will in this respect were corroborated with various evidences on record. Thus, there was ample evidence on record to prove that Smt Basanti, was the daughter of Smt. Gujrati and Vijay Bahadur, was her daughter's son. The findings of fact recorded by the consolidation authorities in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. This Court in Hameed v. Kanhaiya, AIR 2004 All 405 , held that certified copy of the will is admissible in evidence and can be considered for the purpose of proving the contents of the documents. The appellate Court was justified in accepting the certified copy of the will and rightly considered the contents of the will to arrive at a finding that the plaintiff was the son of Sita Ram. 11. The respondents also filed certified copy of Death Certificate, issued from Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi, of Dwarika Singh and Smt. Gujrati. It may be noticed that in Varanasi 'Manikarnika Ghat" is considered to be a sacred place according to the Hindu thoughts for burning dead bodies. 11. The respondents also filed certified copy of Death Certificate, issued from Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi, of Dwarika Singh and Smt. Gujrati. It may be noticed that in Varanasi 'Manikarnika Ghat" is considered to be a sacred place according to the Hindu thoughts for burning dead bodies. Nagar Maha Palika, Varanasi maintains a permanent register in which the details of the dead bodies burnt at this place i.e. name and address of the dead person and name and address of the person who performed cremation, are recorded in it. In the death certificate of Dwarika Singh, name of the person cremated was mentioned as Smt. Gujrati and in the death certificate of Smt. Gujrati, name of person cremated was mentioned as Vijay Bahadur, her daughter's son. Thus from these documents, the case of the petitioner that Dwarika Singh and Smt. Gujrati died in joint state of his family is proved to be false. Had, the petitioner been joint member of Hindu undivided family or any other male member in the family, burning of the dead body by a lady was not possible. From the revenue records, it was proved that branches of Rakshpal Singh and Bhairo Singh were continuously recorded separately since 1291 F. Even after death of Smt. Gujrati, the petitioner did not take any step for recording his name, except the objection in consolidation, which was filed on 21.11.1972 although Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958. The theory of jointness of the family alleged by the petitioner has not been proved. On the other hand, relation of Vijay Bahadur with Smt. Gujrati was proved from this document also. 12. The other point was raised by the petitioner that Smt. Gujrati had life interest in the land in dispute. There is no documentary evidence to proved the date of death of Mahadeo Singh. From the death certificate of Dwarika Singh it was proved that he died on 11.12.1945. In the khatauni 1307 F name of Mahadeo Singh was recorded and in the khatauni 1334 F the name of Smt. Gujrati was recorded. On its basis the consolidation authorities held that Mahadeo Singh died after 1307 F and before 1334 F. The North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 came in to force on 01.01.1902 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 on 07.09.1926. On its basis the consolidation authorities held that Mahadeo Singh died after 1307 F and before 1334 F. The North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 came in to force on 01.01.1902 and Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 on 07.09.1926. The petitioner in paragraph-7 of his objection has admitted that the land in dispute was 'occupancy tenancy' as such, aforementioned tenancy laws were applicable to it. Under Section 22 (b) of the North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901 and under Section 24 Class II of Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 the widow is the heir of male tenant. Admittedly Mahadeo Singh had no son, as such under the aforesaid Acts, Smt. Gujrati was his heir and had become 'occupancy tenant' of the land in dispute. Under Section 19 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Smt. Gujrati had become sirdar of the land in dispute. Admittedly, Smt. Gujrati died on 15.05.1958 as such inheritance of her properties will be governed under Section 172 (2) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, and will be inherited by her husband's heirs as enumerated under Section 171 of the Act. None of the sons of Bhairo Singh were alive on that day. Raj Kumar, father of the petitioner also died on 11.07.1937. Last heir as enumerated under Section 171 (r) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is "father's father's son's son", while married daughter is mentioned in clause (g) of Section 171. Thus the petitioner does not come in the heirs as enumerated under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. On the other hand Smt. Basanti was alive as such she was preferential heir of Smt. Gujrati. The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the basic year entry or to file this writ petition also. 13. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the surrender deed dated 16.08.1943 executed by Dwarika Singh in favour of Smt. Gujrati of her share, was void, is concerned, in this respect, it is sufficient to say that Dwarika Singh died on 11.12.1945 and his interest was devolved upon Smt. Gujrati by way of survivorship under Section 38 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Zamindar had never raised any objection in this respect. Zamindar had never raised any objection in this respect. Smt. Gujrati was in possession of the entire land as an 'occupancy tenant' on the date of vesting under U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and had become sirdar of it. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.