JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Shailesh Tripathi for the petitioners. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 18.4.2012, Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 8.11.2012 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 6.6.2016 passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The dispute between the parties is in respect of inheritance of the properties of Rahat Husain. The petitioner no.1 and his wife Smt.Allawani filed an objection for recording their names over the land in dispute on the basis of will dated 19.11.1982 executed by Rahat Husain in their favour. On the other hand Mohd. Jamil, respondent-4 filed another objection for recording his name over the land in dispute on the basis of another registered will dated 27.12.1985 executed by Rahat Husain in his favour. It is admitted that the petitioner no.1 and Mohd. Jamil both were sons of Rahat Husain. So far as the will of Mohd. Jamil is concerned, it has been found by Deputy Director of Consolidation that Rahat Husain died on 30.12.1985 as such will relied upon by Mohd. Jamil dated 27.12.1985 is not a genuine will. This finding is not in dispute before this Court. The only question which has been raised by the petitioners is that will dated 19.11.1985, which is a registered will and its due execution was proved by its attesting witness Wali Mohammad but this will has been ignored by the court below. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in Benga Behera and another Vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others, 2008 (104) RD 61 and Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, 2009 AIR SC 1766 in which it has been held that in case will is not obtained by exercising under influence and coercion and its execution was proved then this will is liable to be accepted. He submits that will executed by Rahat Husain was a natural will which was illegally ignored by the courts below. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The will is required to be executed according to the provision of 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. He submits that will executed by Rahat Husain was a natural will which was illegally ignored by the courts below. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The will is required to be executed according to the provision of 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. Due execution of the will is liable to be proved according to the provision of Section 68 of Indian Evidenced Act, 1872, for which one of the attesting witnesses is required to be examined before the court. The attesting witness is required to prove that the testator has singed or affixed his thumb impression on the will in his presence and he and other witness has signed or affixed thumb impression in the presence of the testator. In the present case, it is alleged that there were two attesting witnesses of the will, namely, Mohd. Hanif son of Havildar and Wali Mohammad son of Alagu. So far as Mohd. Hanif is concerned, according to the petitioners, he was dead as such he could not be produced before the Court. In order to prove due execution of will Wali Mohammad, other witness was produced in the court. A perusal of the endorsement made by Sub Registrar on the will dated 19.11.1982 shows that before Sub Registrar Mohd. Hanif has identified Rahat Husain. Wali Mohd. was not present before Sub Registrar. A perusal of the statement of Wali Mohd, filed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition, shows that in the entire evidence he has not stated that Rahat Husain signed or affixed his thumb impression in his presence and in the presence of other witness. Thus, due execution of the will has not been proved according to the provision of Section 63(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of due execution being proved as required under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the will cannot be taken in evidence. Since the will has been ignored by the consolidation authorities as such both the parties have inherited according to provision of Section 171 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951, there is no illegality in it. The cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners have no application in the present as there has been no plea that will was obtained by undue influence or coercion. The cases relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners have no application in the present as there has been no plea that will was obtained by undue influence or coercion. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.