JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri B.N. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Matter is taken in the revised cause list. 3. None present on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and going through the record, the position which emerged out in the present case that land in question i.e. Khata No. 226 situated in Village Kushaur, Pargana, Tehsil and District Bahraich was initially recorded in the name of one Sukai S/o Devideen. 5. When the consolidation proceeding started in the village on behalf of the petitioner an objection was filed under Section 9 (A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that Sukai S/o Devideen has executed an unregistered will in her favour on 14.01.1987, so the same be recorded in her name by order dated 12.03.2004, Consolidation Officer allowed the objection filed by the petitioner, transferred/recorded on her name in the revenue record. 6. Order dated 12.03.2004 passed by Consolidation Officer challenged by contesting respondent by filing an appeal No. 591 (Debba and others Vs. Gutta) under Section 11(1) of the Act, dismissed by order dated 19.02.2005, challenged by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 by filing a revision before the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bahraich. 7. By an order dated 18.07.2006, Upper Collector/Upper Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahriach has allowed the revision thereby setting aside the order dated 12.03.2004 and 19.02.2005 passed by Consolidation Officer, Bahraich and Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich on the ground that petitioner / Smt. Gutta was not able to prove the unregistered will in her favour by producing marginal witness, as well as the person subscriber of the will also no steps has been taken by the petitioner to prove the thumb impression of the testator/Sri Swami Dayal on the will. 8. 8. Needless to mention that form the perusal of the record that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court, Sri Rajiv Sharma, the then Upper Collector/Upper Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahriach who has passed the order dated 18.07.2006 in the revision, under challenge in the present writ petition filed an affidavit, in which he has categorically admitted that while passing of the order dated 18.07.2006 he has not taken into consideration rather overlooked the statement given by one of the marginal witness of the will/Sri Swami Dayal which was on record. 9. Thus, taking into consideration the said averments given by Sri Rajiv Sharma, the then Upper Collector/Upper Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahriach admitting the fact that petitioner has proved the execution of will in her favour by producing one of the marginal witness of the will Sri Swami Dayal, the said fact escaped out from him while passing the order dated 18.07.2006 and setting aside the orders passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, Bahraich as well as Consolidation Officer, Bahraich. Dated 19.02.2005 and 12.03.2004 respectively by virtue of which the said authorities held that the will executed in favour of the petitioner by Sri Sukai is valid is contrary to the provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act. 10. Further, it is to be remembered that the Will is the intention of the testator about distribution of his rights with an obvious intention not to go as an intestate, therefore, distribution to one of the heir is more and to other in less can not be a good ground of unnaturality. It is also to be remembered that a Will is not intestate succession to be governed by any law of religious succession. Will is to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which prevails over the field unless , of course, it is hit by any statute. 11. In the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Smt. Kamta Devi reported in AIR 1954 SC 280 the Supreme Court held as under: "the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore the only issue in a probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will and the Court itself is under duty to determine it and preserve the original Will in its custody. The Succession Act is a self-contained code insofar as the question of marking an application for probate,l grant or refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the decision of the Probate Court. This is clearly manifested in the fascicule of the provisions of the Act. The probate proceedings shall be conducted by the Probate Court in the manner prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The grant of probate with a copy of the Will annexed establishes conclusively as to the appointment of the executor and the valid execution of the Will. Thus it does no more than establishes the factum of the Will and the legal character of the executor. Probate Court does not decide and question of title or of the existence of the property itself." 12. In the case of Uma Devi Namibar and others Vs. T.C. Sidhan (Dead) 2004 (2) SCC 321 the Supreme Court held as under: "A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pas to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar Vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar reported in 1994(Suppl.)RD 329(SC), it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar Vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar reported in 1994(Suppl.)RD 329(SC), it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstance, the Court has to give effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. (See also Pushpavathi Vs. Chandraraja Kadamba reported in 1973(3) SCC 291 )." 13. In the case of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee Vs. Panchanan Banerjee reported in 1996(Suppl.)RD119(SC), it was observed: - "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. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly." 14. In the case of Ajit Chandra Majumdar Vs. Akhil Chandra Majumdar reported in AIR 1970 Cal.551, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has held in paragraph 34 as follows: "(34) The Will has been challenged on the grounds that it is an unnatural Will because the testator prefers one son to others. On the question of unnatural and officious Will a Court of probate has to act with great caution. The testator who has full testamentary powers and a disposing mind cannot be dictated by the Court as to what is a fair and an unjust disposition. The Will is the Will of the testator and he has, under the law, the freedom to give his property to whomsoever he likes. What strikes the Court as an eccentric or an unjust or an unnatural disposition can certainly be taken as a consideration on the main question of finding out whether the testator was acting as a free agent and with a sound disposing and understanding mind. What strikes the Court as an eccentric or an unjust or an unnatural disposition can certainly be taken as a consideration on the main question of finding out whether the testator was acting as a free agent and with a sound disposing and understanding mind. But once it is established that the testator was free and had a sound disposing mind, then it is no longer the duty of the court to go further to inject its own ethics of what is or is not a moral or a fair disposition according to the Court's own standards. Judged by that test many a Will by a father depriving his sons would be unjust and indeed many a Will exhibits man's iniquity against his nearest and dearest relations and yet not on that ground alone have those Wills been declared by this Court invalid. Such wrongs, however, grievous, are not for the temporal Courts of justice to correct and are better left to him who adjusts all wrongs and non justifiable iniquities, and under whose munificence the testator and the disinherited alike live and die." 15. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 18.07.2006 passed by Upper Collector/Upper Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahriach/respondent No. 1 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.