JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. – Heard Sri K.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the caveator-respondents no.4 and 5 and Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3. The petitioners no.1 to 4 and respondent no.4 are sons of late Mahavir Singh. The petitioners no.5 and 6 are sons of brother of Mahavir late Virendra Pal Singh. The petitioner no.7 is the widow of Virendra Pal Singh. Respondent no.5 is stated to be the nephew of late Mahavir Singh. Mahavir Singh died on 17.3.2014. Proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation were initiated by the petitioners on the basis of succession. In the meantime respondent nos.4 and 5 filed their objections in the proceedings claiming that land in question was given to them by late Mahavir Singh through Will deed dated 19.10.2013. The trial court has allowed the mutation application under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act and mutated the names of the petitioners as well as respondent no.4 on the land in dispute as heirs on the basis of Succession. The trial court has further held that respondent no.4 has not been able to prove the Will deed dated 19.10.2013. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent nos.4 and 5 filed an appeal which has been allowed by the order dated 6.11.2015 and the order dated 30.7.2015 passed by the Tehsildar has been set aside on the ground that respondent no.4 has been able to prove the Will through the evidence of Rakesh Singh. 3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the seven petitioners and respondent no.4 are in possession over the plot in dispute. In the summary proceedings all that has to be seen is whether the claimants are in possession or not. It is a long settled proposition of law of this Court that in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act which are summary proceedings the Courts have no authority to pronounce upon the validity of the Will and that matter falls exclusively within the domain of suit. It is not in dispute between the parties that a suit has already been filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the Will deed dated 19.10.2013. It is not in dispute between the parties that a suit has already been filed by the petitioners for cancellation of the Will deed dated 19.10.2013. Against the appellate order dated 6.11.2015 the petitioners are stated to have filed revision which has been dismissed by the order dated 28.9.2016. The Appellate court on 6.11.2015 has remitted the matter to decide the matter as fresh. 4. For the reasons aforesaid the appellate order dated 6.11.2015and revisional order dated 28.9.2016 cannot survive and are accordingly quashed. 5. The writ petition is allowed. 6. It is open for the parties to contest the suit which has been filed for cancellation of the Will deed. The trial court while passing the order dated 30.7.2015 has held that the Will deed has been executed on stamp paper which was never purchased in the name of Mahavir Singh. Witness Rakesh Singh stated that on the date when the Will deed was executed Suresh Pal Singh was never present and, therefore, the trial court expressed a doubt as to how the stamp paper was purchased in the name of Suresh Pal Singh whereas it should have been purchased in the name of late Mahavir Singh. The trial court has also expressed doubt that late Mahavir Singh had executed the Will in favour of respondent no.5 to the complete exclusion of his own sons as well as son of Virendra Pal Singh and widow of Virendra Pal Singh, Smt. Krishna Devi. The trial court has held that in the Will deed share of late Mahavir Singh has been described as 1/3 whereas percentage for division/partition under Section 176 has been shown as 1/2. The trial court has also noted that Mahavir Singh was seriously ill and was suffering from cancer which is established from the medical report on the record and, therefore, he was not in a sound condition to execute any Will deed in favour of the respondent no.4. 7. Sri Harsh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5 stated that he wants to file counter affidavit but in the course of the argument he could not raise any new point which he wants to state in the counter affidavit other than what has been noted above except to say that registered Will should prevail over the law succession. If the respondents have nothing to say other than what has been noted above, the counter affidavit in my opinion is not required. More so because the trial court has held that respondent no.4 along with the petitioners was put in possession over the property in dispute in proceedings under Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act for mutation. All that has to be seen in proceeding under Section 34 is whether the party claiming mutation for the land is in possession over the said land. So far as the validity of the Will deed is concerned, the parties may contest their claim before the trial court where the suit for cancellation of Will deed is already pending. Petition Allowed.