JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastav, for the petitioners and Sri A.K. Tiwari, for the caveator. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 06.07.2011, Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.08.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 16.07.2015, passed in the proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Dispute is for inheritance of the land of Smt. Chiraita Devi widow of Ram Sareeh of chaks 287-Aa and 287-Ba of village Ranveerpur, khatas 62 and 63 of village Dihula and khata 38 of village Kripal Kot, pargana Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau, which was recorded in her name. After death of Smt. Chiraita Devi, Smt. Kamla Devi (respondent-4) (daughter of Smt. Chiraita Devi) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 483) under Section 12 of the Act, for recording her name over the land in dispute, claiming herself to be an heir of Smt. Chiraita Devi according to Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Smt. Kamla Devi stated that Kumari Devi and Kamla Devi were two daughters of Ram Sareeh, who had no male issue. Smt. Kumari Devi died during life time of Smt. Chiraita Devi. After her death she was only heir of Smt. Chiraita Devi. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 26.09.2007 allowed her objection and recorded her name over land in dispute. 4. Shardul Ranjan and others (the petitioners) filed an application dated 29.02.2008 for recall of the aforesaid order. The recall application was allowed by Consolidation Officer. Later on, the petitioners filed an objection dated 25.10.2008, for recording their names over the land in dispute, on the basis of an unregistered will dated 16.05.2003, allegedly executed by Smt. Chiraita, in their favour. It has been stated by the petitioners that they were husband's brother's son's sons of Smt. Chiraita Devi. Husband of Smt. Chiraita Devi died long ago. Smt. Chiraita Devi had two daughters, namely Kumari and Kamla and both were married. Kumari had also died. Kamla was residing at her husband house. Smt. Chiraita Devi was living jointly with them and they were looking after her, in her old age. Smt. Chiraita Devi voluntarily executed the will dated 16.05.2003, in their favour in presence of the attesting witnesses. She died on 23.05.2003. Kumari had also died. Kamla was residing at her husband house. Smt. Chiraita Devi was living jointly with them and they were looking after her, in her old age. Smt. Chiraita Devi voluntarily executed the will dated 16.05.2003, in their favour in presence of the attesting witnesses. She died on 23.05.2003. They inherited the land in dispute on the basis of the will. The name of Smt. Kamla Devi was wrongly mutated without any notice to them, by order dated 26.09.2007. 5. Smt. Kamla Devi contested the case and stated that Smt. Chiraita Devi was not living with the petitioners nor she executed any will in their favour. The alleged will dated 16.05.2003 is a forged an fabricated document. Smt. Chiraita Devi was through out living separately from the petitioners. In the old age, she was living with her mother at village Ranveerpur. When, in her last days Smt. Chiraita fell ill seriously, then she get treatment at Ghazipur city and for that purpose, she had taken a room on rent for residing there at mohalla Sakelnabad, Ghazipur city, where she died on 10.10.2004. The petitioners have set up incorrect date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as from 23.08.2004, registration of the will has become compulsory under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951, by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004. After death of Smt. Chiraita Devi, her name was mutated by order of Consolidation Officer dated 27.09.2007 after due proclamation. Unregistered will dated 16.05.2003 was later on fabricated with malafide intention to grab the properties of her mother. 6. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. The petitioners examined Janardan Singh, attesting witness of the will dated 16.05.2003 and Prabhat Ranjan (petitioner-2) and filed will dated 16.05.2003, copy of Pariwar Register showing date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as 23.05.2003. Respondent-4 examined Dukhanti Singh and Smt. Kamla Devi, herself and filed Death Certificate issued from Medical and Health Officer Ghazipur, showing date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as 10.10.2004, Pariwar Register, showing that she was residing with her mother at village Ranveerpur, in which date of death was not mentioned only word "died" has been mentioned and copies of the khataunies of the land in dispute. Consolidation Officer by order dated 06.07.2011, held that in certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 14.05.2006, filed by Smt. Kamla Devi, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi has not been mentioned, only word "died" has been mentioned but in certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 14.03.2007, filed by the petitioners, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi has been mentioned as 23.05.2003. While in the death certificate issued by Medial and Health Officer, Ghazipur date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was mentioned as 10.10.2004. From which it was proved that the petitioners later on got mentioned incorrect date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi in Pariwar Register and obtained its certified copy. For this reason he discarded Pariwar Register produced by the petitioners and held that date of death Smt. Chiraita Devi was 10.10.2004, Registration of the will was made compulsory since 23.08.2004 under Section 169 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. As such the will produced by the petitioners could not be relied upon. From the statement of the witnesses of the petitioners, it was proved that the propounders of the will took active part in execution of the will. Smt. Chiraita Devi was seriously ill at that time and died on 23.05.2003, according to the petitioners. If Smt. Chiraita Devi could be taken on car for her treatment she could have gone to Sub-Registrar Officer for registration of the will. In these circumstances the will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the propounders have failed to explain suspicious circumstances. On these findings, he dismissed the objections of the petitioners and recorded the name of Smt. Kamla Devi over the land in dispute. 7. The petitioners filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 1900/26245 of 2011-10) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 21.08.2012, held that finding regarding date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as recorded by Consolidation Officer did not suffer from any illegality. In the will produced by the petitioners, age of Smt. Chiraita Devi was mentioned as 90 years. According to the statement of the witnesses, she was seriously ill and was lying on cot and died within a week, thus she was not mentally and physically fit for execution of the will. The witnesses of the petitioners could not give any explanation for nor getting the will registered. According to the statement of the witnesses, she was seriously ill and was lying on cot and died within a week, thus she was not mentally and physically fit for execution of the will. The witnesses of the petitioners could not give any explanation for nor getting the will registered. Photo of Smt. Chiraita Devi as affixed on the will was not of that time as the photo was taken while sitting, while at the time of will she was not able to sit. Thus these were highly suspicious circumstances, which remained unexplained. On these findings the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. D 2013155100223) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 16.07.2015, affirmed the aforesaid findings and dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 8. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were husband's brother's son's sons of Smt. Chiraita Devi. Husband of Smt. Chiraita Devi died long ago. Smt. Chiraita Devi had two daughters, namely Kumari and Kamla and both were married in very rich family. Kumari had also died. Kamla was residing at her husband house. Smt. Chiraita Devi was living jointly with the petitioners, who were looking after her, in her old age. Smt. Chiraita Devi voluntarily executed the will dated 16.05.2003, in their favour in presence of the attesting witnesses, in full consciousness of mind. The registration of the will was not compulsory at that time as such it was not thought proper to give any unnecessary pain to Smt. Chiraita Devi for registration of the will as at that time her age was 90 years and she was ill and bedridden. She died on 23.05.2003. Due execution of the will was proved by Janardan Singh, the attesting witness of the will according to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Copy of Pariwar Register filed by the petitioners contained date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as 23.05.2003. Pariwar Register is an authentic public document and is maintained in discharge of statutory duties by public officer. The consolidation authorities have illegally relied upon inadmissible evidence ignoring Pariwar Register. There is no limitation for filing application for mutation under Section 12 of the Act. The land in dispute was joint, with the fathers of the petitioners. Pariwar Register is an authentic public document and is maintained in discharge of statutory duties by public officer. The consolidation authorities have illegally relied upon inadmissible evidence ignoring Pariwar Register. There is no limitation for filing application for mutation under Section 12 of the Act. The land in dispute was joint, with the fathers of the petitioners. From life time of Smt. Chiraita Devi, the petitioners were doing cultivation over the land in dispute and after her death they remained in possession of it. Since there was no dispute regarding the will dated 16.05.2003, as such the petitioners were not in hurry to get their names mutated. Only for the reasons that the application for mutation was filed after about four years of the death, does not create a suspicious circumstance. The orders of consolidation authorities are based upon conjectures and surmises and liable to be set aside. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The first issue between the parties is in respect of date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi. The petitioners filed copy of the Pariwar Register, certified copy of which was issued on 14.03.2007, in which date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was mentioned as 23.05.2003. In order to controvert the evidence of the petitioners, respondent-4 filed Death Certificate, issued from Medical and Health Officer Ghazipur, showing date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi as 10.10.2004, as according to her, Smt. Chirauta Devi died at Ghazipur during her treatment there and was cremated at Ghazipur, where her date of death was endorsed in the Register maintained. She also filed Pariwar Register, certified copy of which was issued on 14.05.2006, showing that she was residing with her mother at village Ranveerpur, in which date of death was not mentioned but only word "died" has been mentioned. Consolidation Officer by order dated 06.07.2011, held that in certified copy of Pariwar Register issued on 14.05.2006, filed by Smt. Kamla Devi, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was not mentioned but only word "died" has been mentioned but in certified copy of same Pariwar Register issued on 14.03.2007, filed by the petitioners, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi has been mentioned as 23.05.2003. While in the death certificate issued by Medial and Health Officer, Ghazipur, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was mentioned as 10.10.2004. While in the death certificate issued by Medial and Health Officer, Ghazipur, date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi was mentioned as 10.10.2004. From which it was proved that the petitioners later on got mentioned incorrect date of death of Smt. Chiraita Devi in Pariwar Register and obtained its certified copy. For this reason he discarded Pariwar Register produced by the petitioners and held that date of death Smt. Chiraita Devi was 10.10.2004, relying upon the Death Certificate issued by Medial and Health Officer, Ghazipur. This finding of fact has been approved concurrently by all the consolidation authorities. Findings recorded by Consolidation Officer in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 10. Section 169 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, as amended by U.P. Act No. 27 of 2004, w.e.f. 23.08.2004 provides that a 'bhumidhar with transferable right' may by will bequeath his holding or any part thereof in writing, attested by two persons and registered. Thus from 23.08.2004, registration of the will was made compulsory under Section 169 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. As Smt. Chiraita Devi was alive on 23.08.2004, as such the amended provisions of Section 169 will apply upon her and it was compulsory for her to got her will registered. An unregistered will produced by the petitioners was not admissible in evidence and could not be relied upon. 11. Even if the version of the petitioners that Smt. Chiraita Devi died 23.05.2003, is accepted then also from their own evidence, the will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances namely (i) The death of executor of the will occurred within a week of the execution of the will, (ii) The executor was of 90 years old and was seriously ill and she was not in condition even to sit on cot. According to statement of petitioner-2, she was ill at that time for about three months. According to statement of petitioner-2, she was ill at that time for about three months. There is no evidence to show that she was in fit mental condition and executed the will out of her own free will, without any coercion and undue influence, (iii) From the statement of the witnesses of the petitioners, it was proved that the propounders of the will had taken active part in execution of the will in as much as he obtained stamp paper on which the will was executed, called scribe and attesting witnesses of the will, (iv) If Smt. Chiraita Devi could be taken on car for her treatment, she could have gone to Sub-Registrar Office for registration of the will (v) Smt. Kamla in her statement has stated that photo affixed on the will dated 16.05.2003 was not photo of her mother Smt. Chiraita rather it was photo of wife of Suryabali and consolidation authorities found that photo affixed on the will was not of a ill lady of 90 years old and (vi) Smt. Chiraita Devi died on 23.05.2003 but claim on its basis has been set up by the petitioners on 29.02.2008 i.e. about five years of her death on the basis of unregistered will. Although no limitation has been provided for mutation but in the case of inheritance on the basis of unregistered will, delay in disclosing the will itself create a doubt in respect of its genuineness. In these circumstances the will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the propounders have failed to explain suspicious circumstances. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Vs. B.N. Thimbajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , S.R. Srinivasa Vs. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 =2010 (111) RD 675 (SC). and M.B. Ramesh Vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (2013) 7 SCC 490 =2013 (120) RD 438 (SC)., held that in case, the propounder has taken active part in execution of the will, then it create a suspicious circumstance. 12. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Vs. B.N. Thimbajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 held that there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. K.M. Veeraje Urs (2013) 7 SCC 490 =2013 (120) RD 438 (SC)., held that in case, the propounder has taken active part in execution of the will, then it create a suspicious circumstance. 12. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Vs. B.N. Thimbajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 held that there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicions circumstances. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. 13. In Sridevi Vs. Jayaraja Shetty, AIR 2005 SC 780 =2005 (98) RD 613 (SC). The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. 13. In Sridevi Vs. Jayaraja Shetty, AIR 2005 SC 780 =2005 (98) RD 613 (SC). in which death of testator occurred within 15 days of execution of the will and in Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi Vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, AIR 2007 SC 614 =2007 (103) RD 38 (SC). in which death occurred within a week, it was held that it was a suspicions circumstance. In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 13 SCC 433 =2007 (103) RD 38 (SC). held that there are several circumstances which would have been held to be described by this Court as suspicious circumstances: (i) when a doubt is created in regard to the condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the will; (ii) when the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances; (iii) where propounder himself takes prominent part in the execution of will which confers on him substantial benefit. The findings, recorded by consolidation authorities that the will was surrounded with suspicious circumstances, which could not be explained by the petitioners, do not suffer from any illegality. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit, it is dismissed.