JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, holding brief of Sri M.M. Salam, for the petitioner and Sri Alok Tripathi, for the contesting respondents. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 14.06.1990, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 16.08.1994 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 15.05.2002, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to inheritance of the properties of Heera Lal son of Lalta recorded in basic consolidation year khata 237 of village Jalimpur Maror, pargana Tambaur, district Sitapur. In basic consolidation year name of Sunder Lal (the petitioner) alone was recorded over the land in dispute. During partal Hardwari (respondent-4) and Hardei (respondent-5) raised dispute for recording their names also in khata in dispute. Initially the matter was compromised between the parties before Assistant Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 13.09.1979 directed for recording the names of Hardwari and Hardei (respondents-4 and 5) as co-sharers along with the petitioner in the khata in dispute. The petitioner filed an appeal from aforesaid order, which was allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 04.08.1980 and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial of the dispute between the parties. After remand, the petitioner filed an objection, claiming that Heera Lal executed a will dated 03.07.1957 of his share, in favour of his father Kewal as such after death of Heera Lal, his share was inherited by Kewal alone. The case was contested by Hardwari, who denied execution of the will and stated that after death of Heera Lal, his property was inherited by Kewal and Hardwari both as his heirs, being his brothers sons. Before Consolidation Officer, the petitioner filed unregistered will dated 03.07.1957 and examined himself as witness. Hardwari examined himself and filed various documents showing that other properties of Heera Lal jointly inherited by Kewal and Hardwari. Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 14.06.1990, held that the petitioner did not file the will before remand of the case by order dated 04.08.1980. The petitioner did not examine the attesting witnesses of the will. Although on the will, thumb impression of Bindra, son of Dwarika, as witness has been mentioned but there was no actual thumb impression of the witness. The petitioner did not examine the attesting witnesses of the will. Although on the will, thumb impression of Bindra, son of Dwarika, as witness has been mentioned but there was no actual thumb impression of the witness. Entire will, including the signatures of attesting witnesses and scribe were in one hand writing. On these findings, he disbelieved the will dated 03.07.1957. He further found that pedigree has been admitted between the parties. From other evidence it was proved that properties of Heera Lal were jointly inherited by Kewal and Hardwari. On these findings he dismissed the objection of the petitioner and directed for recording the name of Hardwari as co-sharer along with the petitioner in the land in dispute. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 485/257/72). The appeal was herd by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 01.10.2014, affirmed the findings of Consolidation Officer and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision Nos. 167/126/74/59/38/36) from the aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 15.05.2002 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel 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 acknowledgment 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. 6. 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 acknowledgment 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;" 7. 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. 8. 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 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. 9. Supreme Court in M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. M.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons, AIR 1969 SC 1147 , Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. Mridula Jyoti Rao, AIR 2007 SC 614 , K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini, AIR 2009 SC 951 , Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs. PrgnabenJamnadas Kataria, AIR 2009 SC 1389 and S.R. Srinivasa Vs. 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". 10. 10. 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 abovesaid 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. 11. In the light of aforementioned proposition of law, the case of the petitioner has to be examined. The petitioner has to prove due execution of the will according to the provision of Section 68 or 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Consolidation Officer found that will did not contain thumb impression/signature of two attesting witnesses. In order to prove due execution of the will, the petitioner did not examine any attesting witnesses of the will. Unregistered will dated 03.07.1957 saw light of the day for the first time in 1980, although Heera Lal had died long before. Thus neither the will was executed according to the provisions of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor it was proved according to the provisions of Section 68 or 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Unregistered will dated 03.07.1957 saw light of the day for the first time in 1980, although Heera Lal had died long before. Thus neither the will was executed according to the provisions of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor it was proved according to the provisions of Section 68 or 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It has been rightly disbelieved by the consolidation authorities. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the findings of facts recorded by consolidation authorities. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.