JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mehrotra, for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.12.2009 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.03.2011, passed in the title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It may be mentioned that Daya Shankar claimed the land of Smt. Inderdei on the basis of will dated 31.05.1976, allegedly executed by her, in his favour and his objection was allowed by Consolidation Officer. Smt. Mithilesh Singh and others also claimed the land of Smt. Inderdei but they lost from the Court of all consolidation authorities. Smt. Mithilesh Singh and others have filed Writ Petition No. 338 (Consolidation) of 2011, which is also pending. Kapildeo Singh and others also claimed the land of Smt. Inderdei and lost from the Court of all consolidation authorities. Kapildeo Singh and others have filed Writ Petition No. 357 (Consolidation) of 2013, which is also pending. However, in Writ Petition No. 364 (Consolidation) of 2011, there is serious dispute in respect of possession over the land in dispute as such counsel for the petitioner insisted to decide this writ petition separately as his case is based upon separate will. Other writ petitions are not ready for hearing and the counsel appearing in those cases are not interested in final arguments as such this writ petition is heard separately and is being decided. 4. Dispute is in respect of the land recorded in basic consolidation year khata of village Chetra, and khatas 13 and 168 of village Pandari, tehsil Bikapur, district Faizabad. As stated above, there were several objections but in this writ petition,2 dispute is between Daya Shankar (the petitioner), who claimed right on the basis of unregistered will dated 31.05.1976, allegedly executed by Smt. Inderdei, recorded tenure holder and heirs of Ram Chet Singh (respondents-3 to 7) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents), who claimed right by way of inheritance under Section 172, 174 and 175 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In basic consolidation year, khata 3 was recorded in the name of Smt. Inderdei, khata 13 was recorded in the name of Smt. Inderdei and Ram Chet Singh. In basic consolidation year, khata 3 was recorded in the name of Smt. Inderdei, khata 13 was recorded in the name of Smt. Inderdei and Ram Chet Singh. Khata 168 (grove land) was recorded in the names of various persons including Smt. Inderdei and Uma Shankar, Rama Shankar and Daya Shankar sons of Ram Naresh. There is vague allegation that Smt. Inderdei was bhabhi of Ram Naresh Singh but the petitioner has neither set up any pedigree nor proved it nor claimed right under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 5. There is dispute in respect of date of death of Smt. Inderdei also. According to the petitioner, Inderdei died on 21.02.1977, while according to the respondents, Inderdei died before 20.09.1976. The consolidation authorities found that as Vijay Kumar filed an application for mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the basis of unregistered will of Smt. Inderdei on 20.09.1976 before Naib Tahsildar under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 as such Smt. Inderdei died before 20.09.1976. There is also dispute in respect of date of will. In paragraph-14 of the writ petition date of will has been mentioned as 31.04.1976. In the will date "4" has been manipulated and made as "5" as in April there is no date "31". But the witnesses have stated that will was executed in May as such this Court proceeds on its basis. 6. The petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recording his name as an heir of Smt. Inderdei under her unregistered will dated 31.05.1976. Naib Tahsildar by order dated 18.07.1979 directed for recording the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute. Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 06.02.1981 allowed the appeal of Ram Chet Singh and set aside the order of Naib Tahsildar. Additional Commissioner by order dated 02.01.1986 dismissed the revision of the the petitioner against the aforesaid order. However, Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 31.01.1992 allowed the revision of the petitioner and remanded the matter to Sub-Divisional Officer, where the proceeding was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act by order dated 19.08.1992. Additional Commissioner by order dated 02.01.1986 dismissed the revision of the the petitioner against the aforesaid order. However, Board of Revenue U.P. by order dated 31.01.1992 allowed the revision of the petitioner and remanded the matter to Sub-Divisional Officer, where the proceeding was abated under Section 5 (2) of the Act by order dated 19.08.1992. The petitioner was raising a plea that order of Naib Tahsildar dated 18.07.1979, so far as it was in respect of the land of khata 3 of village Chetra was not challenged by Ram Chet Singh and had become final and cannot be set aside in consolidation. But this plea of the petitioner was not accepted by High Court as the order passed in mutation proceeding is not relevant in title proceeding and Writ3 Petition No. 644 (Consolidation) of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 29.09.2008 7. When the villages were notified under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioner filed two objections under Section 9 of the Act on 10.12.1993 for recording his name as legatee of Smt. Inderdei under her unregistered will dated 31.05.1976. Ram Chet Singh also filed time barred objections for recording his name as an heir of Smt. Inderdei. As stated above, several other objections were also filed but this writ petition is confined to the claim of the petitioner only. The cases were consolidated and tired by Consolidation Officer. The petitioner filed will dated 31.05.1976, khataunis of the land in dispute for various years, order of Naib Tahsildar dated 18.07.1979 and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 31.01.1992 and examined Daya Shankar Singh, Ram Laut, Swami Nath and Sunder Lal as the witnesses. Ram Chet Singh filed CH Form 11, 23, 45 of previous consolidation, khatauni 1366 F-1368 F, papers from Bank of Baroda, showing that he and Smt. Inderdei jointly took loan, Pariwar Register, order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 06.02.1981 and 19.08.1992 and examined Ram Chet Singh, Mahendra and Jimi Bahadur Singh. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 12.11.2009 held that entry of the name of Ram Chet Singh over khata 13 of village Pandari was not a forgery entry. Naib Tahsildar found that will was dated 31.05.1976 and not 31.04.1976. Jimi Bahadur in his statement has admitted that Smt. Inderdei had executed a will. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 12.11.2009 held that entry of the name of Ram Chet Singh over khata 13 of village Pandari was not a forgery entry. Naib Tahsildar found that will was dated 31.05.1976 and not 31.04.1976. Jimi Bahadur in his statement has admitted that Smt. Inderdei had executed a will. It may be possible that after getting the name recorded over one khata of Inderdei, Ram Chet Singh might have ignored her due to which she executed the will. Mahendra and others have adopted unfair means to get the property of Smt. Inderdei. On these findings the Consolidation Officer directed for recording the name of the petitioner as the heir of Smt. Inderdei. However the name of Ram Chet Singh over khata 13 was maintained. As Ram Chet Singh died in the meantime as such in his place, names of respondents-3 to 6 were recorded. 8. Mahendra Singh and others (the respondents) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1822) and the petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1843) from the aforesaid order. Three other appeals were also filed. The appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 21.12.2009 held that entry of the name of Ram Chet Singh over khata 13 was not a forged entry. Ram Chet Singh was the brother's son of Smt. Inderdei. There is an interpolation in the date mentioned in the will. There is material contradiction between the statements of Ram Laut, Swami Nath and Sunder Lal in respect of time of execution, ink, pen and paper used for will and who had called the witnesses. Various question put to the witnesses were not replied. From statement of the witnesses, it was not proved that Daya Shankar belonged to the family of Sukhraj nor it was proved that Daya Shankar had any closeness with Smt. Inderdei. Finger Print Expert, in his report, found that thumb impression of Smt. Inderdei on the will was not tallying with her thumb impression on the papers of Bank of Baroda. Due execution of the will dated 31.05.1976 was not proved. Ram Chet Singh was brother's son of Smt. Inderdei and was her heir. Finger Print Expert, in his report, found that thumb impression of Smt. Inderdei on the will was not tallying with her thumb impression on the papers of Bank of Baroda. Due execution of the will dated 31.05.1976 was not proved. Ram Chet Singh was brother's son of Smt. Inderdei and was her heir. On these findings the appeal of the respondents was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.11.2009 was set aside and the name of the respondents were directed to be recorded over the land in dispute, as the heirs of Smt. Inderdei. 9. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 1387) from the aforesaid order. Two other revisions were also filed. All the revisions were consolidated and decided by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 10.03.2011 held that entry of the name of Ram Chet Singh over khata 13 was not a forged entry. Smt. Inderdei died before 20.09.1976 and at that time plot 36 was sirdari land and such will in this respect was invalid under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. From statement of Swami Nath also, date of her death came to 1976. Order of Naib Tahsildar, passed in mutation proceeding has no effect in title proceeding in consolidation. There is no evidence that Daya Shankar had ever rendered any service to Smt. Inderdei during her life time. Ram Laut, in his statement admitted that last rites of Smt. Inderdei were performed by Ram Chet Singh, who was residing with her. Date mentioned in the will appears to be "4" although in month of April, there is 30 days only. Ram Laut, in his statement has no where stated that Smt. Inderdei had affixed her thumb impression on the will. He could not state as to whether one person had affixed seal or two persons on the will. Statement of Sunder Lal is not relevant for proving due execution of the will. Although all the witnesses have stated that will was executed at the house of Smt. Inderdei but they had not stated any thing about Ram Chet Singh, who was residing with Inderdei. No one has stated that Daya Shankar was residing with Smt. Inderdei. It is admitted that Ram Chet Singh was brother's son of Smt. Inderdei. Due execution of the will dated 31.05.1976 was not proved. On these findings the revision was dismissed. No one has stated that Daya Shankar was residing with Smt. Inderdei. It is admitted that Ram Chet Singh was brother's son of Smt. Inderdei. Due execution of the will dated 31.05.1976 was not proved. On these findings the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 requires examination of at least one attesting witness to prove due execution of the will. The petitioner examined two attesting witnesses namely Swami Nath and Ram Laut to prove due execution of the will. Bachchu Lal, other attesting witness, was not alive as such his son Sunder Lal was examined, who has proved signature of Bachchu Lal over the will. The will was exhibited by Consolidation Officer. Supreme Court in P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 and in Daya Shankar v. Bachi, AIR 1982 All 376 held that the documentary evidence once exhibited without any objection, it is not open to the respondent to object its admissibility later on. Jimi Bahadur, witness of the respondents, has also admitted execution of will by Smt. Inderdei. Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, authorises the Court to compare signature/thumb impression on a document with admitted signature/thumb impression. Consolidation Officer tallied thumb impression of Smt. Inderdei from her thumb impression on bank papers and found that her thumb impression on both the documents were similar. Findings recorded by Consolidation Officer cannot be said to be illegal. There was no over writing on the date of will, when it was produced before Naib Tahsildar, who found the date as 31.05.1976. Date of the will has been interpolated later on. Such an interpolation does not raise any suspicious circumstance as held in Smt. Shiva Singh and others v. Addl. Collector (Administration), Lucknow and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1761. Date of death of Smt. Inderdei is mentioned as 21.02.1977 in Pariwar Register. By U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977, bhumidari right has been conferred over sirdari land w.e.f. 28.01.1977. Smt. Inderdei died on 21.02.1977 as such prohibition under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is not applicable in this case. Ram Chet Singh and Jimi Bahadur, have admitted that Smt. Inderdei was bhabhi of Ram Naresh Singh. By U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977, bhumidari right has been conferred over sirdari land w.e.f. 28.01.1977. Smt. Inderdei died on 21.02.1977 as such prohibition under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 is not applicable in this case. Ram Chet Singh and Jimi Bahadur, have admitted that Smt. Inderdei was bhabhi of Ram Naresh Singh. Relation of the petitioner with Smt. Inderdei was not only proved by the petitioner but also admitted by the witnesses of the respondents. Thus the petitioner was not a stranger to Smt. Inderdei and execution of will by her in favour of the petitioner does not raise any suspicious circumstance. Possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute is also proved. Land in dispute was inherited by Smt. Inderdei from her husband and such provisions of Section 174 (g) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 will not apply. Ram Chet Singh claimed to be brother's son of Smt. Inderdei. He was not an heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 11. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that from the statement of Ram Laut, it is proved that the petitioner had taken active role in execution of the will dated 31.05.1976. He had called the witnesses. Active participation of the propounder in execution of the will creates a suspicious circumstance. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribed the procedure for execution of the will. Due execution of the will is required to be proved according to the provision of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Neither Swami Nath nor Ram Laut, in their statement have deposed that they had animo attestandi. Section 686 requires to prove execution and attestation of the will. He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 , in which it has been held that in every case the Court must be satisfied that the names were written animo attestandi". 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 petitioner set up his title on the basis of will dated 31.04.1976. 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 petitioner set up his title on the basis of will dated 31.04.1976. The petitioner has not claimed right under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 nor gave any pedigree connecting himself with Smt. Inderdei or her husband Bindra Sewak Singh. If the petitioner's will is not accepted then he will have no locus standi to challenge the orders of respondents-1 and 2 as held by Supreme Court in Ayaaub Khan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere in finding of fact as held by Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481 and State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Sugar And Oil Mills Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 509 . The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. He also submitted that where propounder had taken active role in execution of the will, then it is a suspicious circumstance. 12. I have considered the arguments of the counsels for the parties and examined the record. 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." 13. 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;" 14. 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. 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." 15. 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) 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 testator's 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. 16. Supreme Court in M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri & 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". 17. 17. Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. Suresh, (2003) 12 SCC 35 , held that according to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a document required by law to be attested, which a Will is, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if available to depose and amenable to the process of the court. The proviso inserted in Section 68 by Act 31 of 1926 dispenses with the mandatory requirement of calling an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document to which Section 68 applies if it has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. However, a Will is excepted from the operation of the proviso. A Will has to be proved as required by the main part of Section 68. It is true that Section 63 of the Succession Act does not specifically speak of codicils and that omission has prompted the learned counsel for the appellants to urge that the applicability of Section 63 above-said should be treated as confined to the execution of Wills only. Supreme Court in Joseph John Peter Sandy v. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar, AIR 2013 SC 2028 , held even though the document may be admissible, still its contents have to be proved and in the instant case, as the appellant did not examine either the attesting witnesses of the document. 18. In the light of aforementioned proposition of law, the case of the petitioner has to be examined. As stated above, admission of execution of the will by the witness of the respondents does not dispense with the liability of the petitioner to prove due execution of the will under Proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In order to prove due execution of the will, the petitioner filed will dated 31.05.1976 and examined Ram Laut, Swami Nath as the attesting witnesses of the will. He also examined Sunder Lal son of Bachchu Lal to prove thumb impression of Bachchu Lal on the will. Sunder Lal did not state any thing about due execution of the will and cannot be treated as an attesting witness. He also examined Sunder Lal son of Bachchu Lal to prove thumb impression of Bachchu Lal on the will. Sunder Lal did not state any thing about due execution of the will and cannot be treated as an attesting witness. The will is written on one page paper in handwriting by one Ram Karan Singh, who had signed at bottom. In margin, thumb impressions of Inderdei, Bachchu Lal and Ram Laut are allegedly affixed and in between Bachchu Lal and Ram Laut signature of Raj Bahadur Singh has been made. At bottom signatures of Ram Karan Singh scribe, Keshari Singh, Pradhan along with seal, then Swami Nath, Pradhan and thereafter Baldeo Singh, Pradhan along with seal were made. In the will, it has been mentioned that Daya Shankar was niece of Smt. Inderdei and used to render services to her. 19. Ram Laut, who had affixed his thumb impression has stated that Daya Shankar got the will executed from Smt. Inderdei. First of all Ram Bahadur thereafter Bachchu Lal and then he had signed it. This witness has not stated that will was read over and explained to Smt. Inderdei or Smt. Inderdei affixed her thumb impression on it, in his presence. Similarly this witness has not stated that Swami Nath made his signature on10 the will in his presence or in presence of Smt. Inderdei or Smt. Inderdei informed him in respect of signature of Swami Nath. He merely stated that Pradhan had put his seal on the will. As stated above, Swami Nath had not affixed his seal. His statement does not fulfill the requirements of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 and has been rightly disbelieved. 20. Swami Nath, in his statement has stated that he was marginal witness of the will. He had signed the will first, thereafter Baldeo Singh and then Bachchu Lal, Ram Laut and Ram Bahadur. In cross examination he had stated that will was read over to Smt. Inderdei, she had signed it first and thereafter the witnesses signed it. As noticed above, signatures of Swami Nath is not in margin of the will but at the bottom. His statement that he was marginal witness of the will is false. He was resident of another village. Who had called him to attest the will, has not been stated. As noticed above, signatures of Swami Nath is not in margin of the will but at the bottom. His statement that he was marginal witness of the will is false. He was resident of another village. Who had called him to attest the will, has not been stated. Admittedly at that time, Smt. Inderdei had become too old and had difficulties in walking. It is not expected for her to go one and half K.M. from her house to call Swami Nath to attest her will. Ram Laut, had not noticed even signature of Swami Nath. Daya Shankar might have procured his signature at the bottom of the will. Swami Nath cannot be treated as attesting witness. Settlement Officer Consolidation, who is first appellate court found that there is material contradiction between the statements of Ram Laut, Swami Nath and Sunder Lal in respect of time of execution, ink, pen and paper used for will and who had called the witnesses. Various question put to the witnesses were not replied. Deputy Director of Consolidation found that there is no evidence that Daya Shankar ever rendered any service to Smt. Inderdei during her life time. Ram Laut, in his statement admitted that last rites of Smt. Inderdei were performed by Ram Chet Singh, who was residing with her. Ram Laut, in his statement has no where stated that Smt. Inderdei had affixed her thumb impression on the will. He could not state as to whether one person had affixed seal or two persons on the will. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that Consolidation Officer had compared thumb impression of Smt. Inderdei is not sufficient to hold that will was proved according to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so long as its execution and attestation is not proved, it cannot be read in evidence. Finding of fact recorded by respondents-1 and 2 do not suffer from any illegality. 21. Ram Laut has stated that Daya Shankar got the will executed in his favour. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 and M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (2013) 7 SCC 490 held that in case, the propounder has taken active part in execution of the will, then it create a suspicious circumstance. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , S.R. Srinivasa v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 and M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraje Urs (2013) 7 SCC 490 held that in case, the propounder has taken active part in execution of the will, then it create a suspicious circumstance. In this case, the petitioner took active part in execution of the will, which is a suspicious circumstance. Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 , Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba, (1973) 3 SCC 291 , Jai Kumar Singh v. Kallu Singh, 2000 (Supple) RD 28 and K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini, AIR 2009 SC 591 held that when there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court and only when such responsibility is discharged, the court would accept the will as genuine. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. Suspicious circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The petitioner could not remove the suspicious circumstance. 22. Findings of fact recorded by respondents-1 and 2 in respect of date of death of Smt. Inderdei also do not suffer from any illegality. In the Pariwar Register (filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition), date of cutting of the name of Smt. Inderdei has been mentioned as 21.02.1977, on which basis the petitioner is arguing that she had died on 21.02.1977. Date of cutting of the name from Pariwar Register cannot be treated as date of death. Similarly findings of fact recorded by all the three consolidation authorities that Smt. Inderdei had co-opted Ram Chet Singh along with her in khata 13 of village Padari also do not suffer from any illegality. Date of cutting of the name from Pariwar Register cannot be treated as date of death. Similarly findings of fact recorded by all the three consolidation authorities that Smt. Inderdei had co-opted Ram Chet Singh along with her in khata 13 of village Padari also do not suffer from any illegality. As stated above, the petitioner has not claimed right under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 nor gave any pedigree connecting himself with Smt. Inderdei or her husband Bindra Sewak Singh. In khata 168 of village Padari, names of various persons were recorded and it is not proved that as to who was a preferential heir of Smt. Inderdei under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. It is also not proved that when Smt. Inderdei had become widow. The petitioner's will has not been accepted as such he has no locus standi to challenge orders of respondents-1 and 2 as held by Supreme Court in Ayaaub Khan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no illegality in orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation. The writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed. By virtue of interim orders, the petitioner has harvested the crops from the disputed land. After deducting expenses of sowing etc. the crops, he will return, remaining amount to the respondents, within a period of three months. If he fails to return the aforesaid amount, the respondents may realise it by executing this order. Petition Dismissed.