JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Umesh Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Shree Prakash Singh and Sri Girish Chand Sinha, for the contesting respondent-4. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Settlement officer, Consolidation dated 21.08.1995, allowing the appeal filed by respondent-4 and directing that her name be also mutated over the land of Mohan as his daughter along with two other daughters and order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 30.6.2014 dismissing the revision of the petitioners, against the aforesaid order, passed in title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khatas 381 and 382 of village Kishunpur Kabiraha, pargana Surhurpur, district Faizabad (now Ambedkar Nagar), which were recorded in the name of Mohan and khata 99, which was recorded in the names of Gyan Das alias Chitaru and Mohan. At the time of partal, it has been informed that Mohan was dead and left behind him three daughters, namely, Smt. Dulari, Smt. Sarjoo Dei and Smt. Prabhu Dei (respondent-4) and they were his heirs. Smt. Sarjoo Dei and Smt. Dulari (now represented by the petitioners) filed an objection under Section 9A of the Act, for recording their names as heirs of Mohan on the basis of will deed dated 24.10.1979 executed by him. Smt. Prabhu Dei filed an objection for recording names of three daughter as an heirs of Mohan. The matter was contested between the parties and they adduced their evidence. Smt. Dulari and Smt. Sarjoo Dei were examined and they also examined Dukhchhor, who is one of the contesting witness of the will dated 24.10.1979. On behalf of the contesting respondent Gyandas alias Chitaru was examined, who was power of attorney holder of Smt. Prabhu Dei, and the witness Dhaneshar was examined. Both the parties filed documentary evidence also in support of their cases. The Consolidation officer, after hearing the parties by order dated 23.02.1993 held that the execution of the will was proved by Dukhchhor, the attesting witness of the will. As Mohan had executed the will in favour of two daughters only as such Smt. Prabhu Dei has not inherited the property of Mohan. On these findings, the objection of Smt. Dulari and Smt. Sarjoo Dei was allowed the objection of Smt. Prabhu Dei was dismissed. 4. As Mohan had executed the will in favour of two daughters only as such Smt. Prabhu Dei has not inherited the property of Mohan. On these findings, the objection of Smt. Dulari and Smt. Sarjoo Dei was allowed the objection of Smt. Prabhu Dei was dismissed. 4. Smt. Prabhu Dei, respondent-4, filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No.4136/1300) from the aforesaid order of the Consolidation officer. The appeal was heard by Assistant Settlement officer Consolidation who by the impugned order dated 21.08.1995 held that no reason has been given by the propounder of the will to disinherit Smt. Prabhu Dei, who is third daughter of Mohan, as such the will dated 24.10.1979 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and propounder has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances. On this finding, he ignored the will dated 24.10.1979 and directed for recording the names of all the three daughters of Mohan over the land in dispute. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No.341/239/232/14) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by the Additional Collector(Finance and Revenue), who by order dated 30.06.2014 found that Dukhchhor, the attesting witness could not prove due execution of the will as such no reliance can be placed on it. The other attesting witness of the will, namely, Mohabi and scribe of the will were not produced. In such circumstances due execution of the will was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and order of Assistant Settlement officer, Consolidation did not suffer from any illegality. On this finding the revision was dismissed by the order dated 30.6.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that will dated 24.10.1979 is a registered document and so long as it is not cancelled by the civil court, the consolidation authorities have no right to ignore the will as held by this Court in Phooley v. Anjeet and others, 2014(32) LCD 1519. He submits that under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 one of the attesting witnesses of the will is required to be prove for its execution. The petitioners examined Dukhchhor, the attesting witness of the will, who has proved its due execution. In such circumstances that the execution of the will was proved it could not have been ignored as held by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram and others v. Sodha and others, 2006 (24) LCD 1749 (SC). The petitioners examined Dukhchhor, the attesting witness of the will, who has proved its due execution. In such circumstances that the execution of the will was proved it could not have been ignored as held by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram and others v. Sodha and others, 2006 (24) LCD 1749 (SC). He further submits that at the most will is a voidable documents and the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to ignore it as held in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and others 1973 AIR SC 2451. He also relied upon judgment of this Court in Jangi Singh and another v. Sri Raghubir Singh Chauhan and others, 2004 (22) LCD 354, in which it has been held that uneven distribution of assets among children in the will does not create any suspicious circumstance and one of the a daughters was deprived from inheritance would not be taken as suspicious circumstance as the will is executed to overcome the natural order of succession. The Consolidation officer was fully satisfied that the execution of will was proved and the order of the Consolidation officer was not liable to be set side by the appellate and the revisional courts. 6. In reply to the aforesaid arguments the counsel for the respondent, pointing out the statement of Dukhchhor submits that Dukhchhor was not a reliable witness. He in his statement has stated that he had no knowledge about the issues of Mohan and he had also no knowledge as to which of the daughter of Mohan was elder and which was younger. In such circumstances that he was resident of another village and was an stranger to the family of Mohan, it is not expected from any person would get his will attested by a stranger person. Dukhchhor, in his statement has stated that he was not taken by Mohan to the court for attesting the will rather by chance he met him in the court compound and was asked to attest the will. He was a chance and procured witness and his credibility is extremely doubtful. Deputy Director of Consolidation has given detailed reasons for disbelieving this witness. Since other attesting witness of the will was not examined and only attesting witness Dukhchhor, has been disbelieved, as such the will could not be acted upon in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68 of Evidence Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation has given detailed reasons for disbelieving this witness. Since other attesting witness of the will was not examined and only attesting witness Dukhchhor, has been disbelieved, as such the will could not be acted upon in view of the mandatory provision of Section 68 of Evidence Act. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1766 in which it has been held that propounder of the will is not only required to prove due execution of will but also required to offer reasonable explanation to remove such suspicious circumstances. The exclusion of or absence of making adequate provision in respect of a natural heir itself is a suspicious circumstance and in such circumstances, the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and has been rightly ignored. He also relied upon the case of S. R. Srinivasa and others v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 , in which it has been held that execution of the will must satisfy the statutory requirement of examination of at least one attesting witness for proving the will and if the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances then suspicious circumstances could not be brushed aside only on the basis of statement of one of attesting witness. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in Ravindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, AIR 1995 SC 1684 , P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, AIR 1995 SC 1852 , Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande, AIR 2003 SC 3109 and Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, AIR 2004 SC 1772 , has held that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Although Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 2009 SC 1766 observed that exclusion of or absence of making adequate provision in respect of a natural heir itself is a suspicious circumstance. But in view of consistent cases aforementioned, it is not possible to hold that depriving Smt. Prabhu Dei from inheritance, one of the married daughter, in the will was a suspicious circumstance. 8. But in view of consistent cases aforementioned, it is not possible to hold that depriving Smt. Prabhu Dei from inheritance, one of the married daughter, in the will was a suspicious circumstance. 8. However Deputy Director of Consolidation found that due execution of the will was not proved. A perusal of the statement of Dukhchhor, attesting witness of the will, who was examined for proving due execution of the will, shows that he was resident of village Natthupur Khurd while Mohan was resident of Kishunpur Kabiraha. He had no knowledge about the issues of Mohan and as to which daughter of Mohan was elder and which was younger. He had no knowledge about the family of Mohan and was stranger. He deposed that Mohan had not called him for attesting the will and by chance he met Mohan in court compound and Mohan was having only one witness Mohabi while for the attestation of the will two witnesses were required as such Mohan asked him for attesting the will. 9. Mode of execution of the will has been prescribed under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is quoted below:- 63. Execution of unprivileged wills. - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules: - (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his marks to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 10. The word "attestation" has been defined under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as follows:- "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary;" 11. Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 requires that testator shall sign or shall affix his marks to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. Execution of the will is required to be proved by at least by one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is quoted below:- 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Execution of the will is required to be proved by at least by one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is quoted below:- 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. - If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. 12. A three Hon'ble Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 , after reviewing earlier judgments held that as per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of a will: (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will; (3) the will should be attested by two or more witnesses, and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the will and each of them should sign the will in the presence of the testator. The attestation of the will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested (sic attesting) witness should put his signature on the will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested (sic attesting) witness should put his signature on the will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a will is required by law to be attested, its execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in the section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of such a document. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testators signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator. 13. Supreme Court in M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri and Sons, AIR 1969 SC 1147 , Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mridula Jyoti Rao, AIR 2007 SC 614, K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, AIR 2009 SC 951 , Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Prgnaben Jamnadas Kataria, AIR 2009 SC 1389 and S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 , has held that in every case the Court must be satisfied that the names were written animo attestandi". Evidence is admissible to show whether the witness had the intention to attest. "The attesting witnesses must subscribe with the intention that the subscription made should be complete attestation of the will, and evidence is admissible to show whether such was the intention or not, the Court held that the two persons who had identified the testator at the time of the registration of the will and had appended their signatures at the foot of the endorsement by the sub-Registrar, were not attesting witnesses as their signatures were not put "animo attestandi". 14. A perusal of the statement of Dukhchhor does not show that he had any animo attestandi to thumb impression of testator on the will rather he was a chance witness and appears to be a procured witness. 14. A perusal of the statement of Dukhchhor does not show that he had any animo attestandi to thumb impression of testator on the will rather he was a chance witness and appears to be a procured witness. It is a natural conduct that any person who is going to execute a registered will, will have the attesting witnesses along with him. The statement of Dukhchhor has been disbelieved by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is a fact finding authority, for various reasons as mentioned above. Other attestor, though live, but was not examined. Due execution of the will is not proved and it is not liable to be accepted in view of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Courts below have not committed any illegality in ignoring the will. 15. So far as the case law in Phooley's case (supra) relied by the counsel for the petitioners, is concerned, this case was relating to a voidable sale deed, in which provisions of Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 was not applicable. In view of mandatory requirement under Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872, the will shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. The right over agricultural land was claimed on basis the will as such so long as it is not proved according to the provisions of Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872, no reliance can be placed upon it. Analogy for the voidable sale deed is not applicable for the will. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgments of the courts below do not suffer from any illegally. There is no merit in the case. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.