JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Vijai Bahadur Verma, for the petitioner and Sri M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Shadab Khan, for respondents-4 and 5. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 30.03.1993, Additional Commissioner dated 18.01.1995 and Board of Revenue U.P. dated 12.11.2000, 25.01.2005 and 04.05.2005 passed in mutation proceeding under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to inheritance of Smt. Udai Raji widow of Ram Pal of village Fardaha Sumer, pargana Patti, district Pratapgarh, The petitioner, who is married daughter of Smt. Udai Raji, filed an application for mutation of her name as an heir of Smt. Udai Raji, on the basis of unregistered will dated 14.08.1988, allegedly executed by Smt. Udai Raji in her favour. In order to prove due execution of the will, she examined Shitla Prasad Tewari and Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi, both attesting witnesses of the will and her Power of Attorney. She also filed various documents to prove that Smt. Udai Raji fell ill on 21.08.1984 and was under treatment of Dr. Chintamani till 23.08.1984 and on 23.08.1984, she was admitted in hospital at Sultanpur and will dated 22.08.1984 set up by respondents-4 and 5 is a forged document. It may be mentioned that Smt. Bhagwan Devi, who was other married daughter of Smt. Udai Raji also filed an application for mutation of her name along with petitioner as an heir of Smt. Udai Raji. She later on, withdrew her mutation application, admitting will set up by the petitioner. 4. Ram Iqbal and Jagat Prasad sons of Ram Sukh (respondents-4 and5), who are husband's brother's sons of Smt. Udai Raji also filed an application for mutation of their names on the basis of unregistered will dated 22.08.1984 allegedly executed by Smt. Udai Raji in their favour. They also examined Paras Nath and Rajmani attesting witnesses of the will dated 22.08.1984. Tahsildar, by order dated 30.01.1992 held that Smt. Udai Raji was seriously ill on 22.08.1984, which was proved from certificate issued by Dr. Chintamani and admitted to Hospital on 23.08.1984 as such execution of will by her on 22.08.1984 is highly suspicious document. Paras Nath and Rajmani attesting witnesses of the will dated 22.08.1984 were professional witnesses and had no credibility. Chintamani and admitted to Hospital on 23.08.1984 as such execution of will by her on 22.08.1984 is highly suspicious document. Paras Nath and Rajmani attesting witnesses of the will dated 22.08.1984 were professional witnesses and had no credibility. Smt. Prabha Devi was residing with her mother from the life time of her father as such there was no reason for Smt. Udai Raji to execute will in favour of the respondents. Due execution of the will dated 14.08.1984 set up by the petitioner was proved by attesting witnesses Shitla Prasad tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Dwivedi. On these findings, he allowed mutation application of the petitioner and directed for recording her names over the land in dispute. 5. Respondents- 4 and 5 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 167/60) from aforesaid order. Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 30.03.1993, held that certificate issued by Dr. Chintamani or the hospital were not proved. It appears that these certificates were procured only to create doubt in respect of execution of the will dated 22.08.1984. Smt. Bhagwan Devi, the sister of the petitioner, filed an application for mutation on the basis of inheritance thus will set up by the petitioner appears to be doubtful. The witnesses of the will of the petitioner were not resident of village of Smt. Udai Raji. Respondents-4 and 5 were husband's brother's sons of Smt. Udai Raji as execution of will in their favour was more natural. Due execution of the will was fully proved by the attesting witnesses. On these findings, he allowed the appeal, set aside order of Tahsildar 30.01.1992 and directed for mutation of the names of the respondents. 6. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No.136 of 1993) against the aforesaid order. Additional Commissioner, by order dated 18.01.1995 dismissed the revision. The petitioner filed a second revision (registered as Revision No. 66 (LR) of 1994-95) before Board of Revenue, U.P. Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 12.01.2000, dismissed the revision. The petitioner filed a review application. Division Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P., by order dated 25.01.2005 allowed the review application and set aside the order dated 12.01.2000 and directed the revision to be listed for hearing before Single Member. Thereafter, Single Member by order dated 04.05.2005 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The petitioner filed a review application. Division Bench of Board of Revenue, U.P., by order dated 25.01.2005 allowed the review application and set aside the order dated 12.01.2000 and directed the revision to be listed for hearing before Single Member. Thereafter, Single Member by order dated 04.05.2005 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was residing along with her parents from life time of her father. Respondents-4 and 5 were living separately from the parents of the petitioner and had never taken any care of them. There was no occasion for Smt. Udai Raji to execute any will in favour of respondents-4 and 5. Smt. Udai Raji was seriously ill on 22.08.1984, which was proved from certificate issued by Dr. Chintamani and she was admitted to Hospital on 23.08.1984. At that time she was in coma as such execution of will by her on 22.08.1984 was not possible. The will dated 22.08.1984 is a forged and fabricated document. Paras Nath and Rajmani attesting witnesses of the will dated 22.08.1984 were professional witnesses and had been disbelieved by Tahsildar. Sub-Divisional Officer has illegally believed them without considering the fact that they were hired witnesses. In view of Section 40 of the Act, while deciding mutation cases, possession over the land in dispute was also required to be decided but Sub-Divisional Officer has illegally not recorded any findings in this respect. Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue, U.P. have illegally not considered various arguments of the petitioner raised before them. Orders of Revenue Courts are illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The proceedings under the Act are summary in nature. It is neither relevant nor operate as res-judicata in suit. In view of Section 40-A of the Act, the person aggrieved from the orders of Revenue Courts, in mutation proceeding can file a suit to establish his title. In the suit, the aggrieved person can file fresh evidence also. It was always considered appropriate to relegate the parties to file a suit against mutation order, in order to save their time and evidence as due to long pendency of writ petition, valuable oral evidence of the parties may lost. In the suit, the aggrieved person can file fresh evidence also. It was always considered appropriate to relegate the parties to file a suit against mutation order, in order to save their time and evidence as due to long pendency of writ petition, valuable oral evidence of the parties may lost. The order passed in mutation proceeding, even if confirmed/reversed by this Court in writ petition will remain an order of mutation, which can be challenged in suit by the aggrieved party. Supreme Court in Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 , held that it is well settled that revenue records confer no title on the party. It has been recently held by this Court in Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr, (2007) 6 SCC 186 that such entries are relevant only for "fiscal purpose" and substantive rights of title and of ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only by a competent court in appropriate proceedings. It is clear from the record that grievance of Respondent 2 daughter, related to mutation entry. If the authorities under the Tenancy Act felt that the action was in consonance with law, it could have retained the entry. The inquiry, however, was limited to the entry in the revenue records and nothing more. It had no bearing whatsoever as to the right of ownership, inheritance or title to the property. In our opinion, therefore, neither the authorities under the Tenancy Act nor the High Court could have entered into the question of ownership, title or inheritance in the present proceedings and they ought to have decided the controversy limited to mutation entry in the revenue records. Similar view has been taken in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 , Durga Das Vs. The Collector, AIR 1996 SC 2786 , Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2719 and Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCCC 464. 9. Similar view has been taken in Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 , Durga Das Vs. The Collector, AIR 1996 SC 2786 , Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , State of H.P. Vs. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2719 and Mahila Bajrangi Vs. Badribai (2003) 2 SCCC 464. 9. This Court while considering the provisions of Section 34 of the Act has examined the ambit and scope of entertaining the writ petition against the order passed in mutation proceedings in Lal Bachan v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, 2002 (93) RD 6 referring to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jaipal, Minor v. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, 1956 A.L.J. 807 following was laid down by this Court: "12. In view of the above discussions, it is clear that although the writ petition arising out of the mutation proceedings cannot be held to be non- maintainable but this Court do not entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution due to reason that parties have right to get the title adjudicated by regular suit and the orders passed in mutation proceedings are summary in nature. 13. The second question which needs to be considered is as to in what circumstances the writ petition can be entertained arising out of the mutation proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court in Jaipal's case (supra) has referred to "exception" to the general rule in following words: "The only exception to this general rule is in those cases in which the entry itself confers a title on the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. This petition does not fall in that class and we think therefore this Court should not entertain it. It is accordingly dismissed with costs." This judgment has been followed in Madhav Pandey Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1311 , Puran Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2004 (22) LCD 494 and approved by Division Bench in Nirmala Devi v. Upper Commissioner Nagar Nigam, (2011) 6 All LJ 242. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a suit to establish her title over the land in dispute. Board of Revenue, U.P., 2004 (22) LCD 494 and approved by Division Bench in Nirmala Devi v. Upper Commissioner Nagar Nigam, (2011) 6 All LJ 242. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a suit to establish her title over the land in dispute. For a period of three months no third party interest shall be created and status quo with regards to nature and possession over the land in dispute shall be maintained.