JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Virendra Kumar Dubey, for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Tiwari, for the contesting respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Deputy Collector dated 05.06.2009 and Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 04.06.2014 and 25.08.2014, in mutation proceeding under U.P. Land Revenue Act,1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties is for inheritance of land of Mula son of Girwar, resident of village Kharot, pargana Chhata, district Mathura, of khata- 307 (consisting plots 534 (area 1.47 acre), 634 (area 0.34 acre), 668 (area 1.20 acre), 671 (area 0.81 acre) 1311-Aa (area 0.93 acre) and 1311-Ba (area (3.75 acre) situated in aforesaid village. Mula died on 14.09.1989. The petitioner filed an application (registered as Case No. 268-T/191-NT) under Section 34 of the Act, for mutation of his name over the land in dispute, on the basis of unregistered will dated 10.08.1989, before Naib Tahsildar. Amar Chand (respondent-3) filed another application before Tahsildar for mutation of his name over the land in dispute on the ground that Mula had adopted him on 14.03.1969 and later on executed a registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989. Mula also executed a registered will dated 24.02.1989 in his favour. In last 3 years of life, Mula shifted to village Lohna, tahsil Palval, district Faridabad and was residing with his natural father, Bishram and died there. Alleged will dated 10.08.1989 was a forged document. 4. Both the cases were consolidated and tried together. The petitioner filed unregistered will dated 10.08.1989 and examined Bigharam, Amar Chand, Pradhan, Suleman, Jeetaram and Ram Kishan as witnesses. Respondent-3 filed registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989 and examined Amar Chand, Bishram, Chokhe Lal, Khayali Ram, Bijendra Singh and Dalu as witnesses. Naib-Tahsildar, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 16.09.1993, held that none of the witnesses of respondent-3 could prove performance of rites of adoption and adoption of respondent-3 by Mula was not proved. All of his witnesses were outsider of village Kharot and relations of respondent-3. In the will, adoption deed, other record of the village Lohna and service-records of respondent-3, his father's name was written as Bishram. It is not proved that Mula had resided at village Lohna or got treatment there and died there. All of his witnesses were outsider of village Kharot and relations of respondent-3. In the will, adoption deed, other record of the village Lohna and service-records of respondent-3, his father's name was written as Bishram. It is not proved that Mula had resided at village Lohna or got treatment there and died there. Amar Chand was not in possession of the land in dispute. Possession of Kishan Chand over the land in dispute was proved. On these findings he allowed mutation application of the petitioner and dismissed the application of respondent-3. 5. Respondent-3 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 4 of 2006-07) from the aforesaid order. The appeal was heard by Deputy Collector, who by order dated 05.06.2009, held that execution of registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989 were proved from the statements of attesting witnesses. It is not probable that a man, who had already executed a registered will dated 24.02.1989, will not refer nor cancel it in his subsequent unregistered will dated 10.08.1989. In will dated 10.08.1989, reason for execution of the will was mentioned to avoid dispute, which could be no reason for executing a will. Naib-Tahsildar has illegally ignored registered will dated 24.02.1989 and registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989. On these findings, he allowed the appeal and directed for mutation of the name of respondent-3 over the land in dispute. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2577 (LR) of 2008-2009) from order dated 05.06.2009 before Board of Revenue, U.P. Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 04.06.2014 held that Ram Kishan had filed unregistered will dated 10.08.1989, after much delay before Naib-Tahsildar when Amar Chand filed an application for directing him to produce his will, which is a suspicious circumstance as held by Supreme Court in 1990 RD 198. Unregistered will dated 10.08.1989 was surrounded with suspicious circumstances and has been illegally accepted by Naib-Tahsildar. Performance of all the rites of adoption of Amar Chand by Mula was proved by the witnesses. Due execution of registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989 and registered will dated 24.02.1989 were also proved beyond doubts. Had Mula executed will dated 10.08.1989, he would have definitely mentioned about adoption and previous will in it. Appellate Court duly considered all the facts and circumstance, while Naib-Tahsildar has illegally allowed mutation application of the petitioner on the basis of his illegal possession. Had Mula executed will dated 10.08.1989, he would have definitely mentioned about adoption and previous will in it. Appellate Court duly considered all the facts and circumstance, while Naib-Tahsildar has illegally allowed mutation application of the petitioner on the basis of his illegal possession. The petitioner filed a review application, which has been dismissed by Board of Revenue, U.P. by order dated 25.08.2014. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mula never adopted Amar Chand. Father's name of Amar Chand was through noted as Bishram in his village record, school record, electoral roll and service record and not as Mula. The Courts below, only on the basis of alleged registered adoption deed dated 10.03.1989, found that adoption was proved although presumption under Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is rebuttable presumption, as held by Supreme Court in Jai Sing v. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634 . The petitioner filed village record, school record, electoral roll and service record of Army of respondent-3, to prove that father's name of respondent-3 was recorded as Bishram and he through out resided at village Lohni and not at Kharot, to rebut the presumption. Even in the will dated 24.02.1989, father's name of respondent-3 was noted as Bishram. These facts and conducts were relevant and required to be considered while deciding validity of the adoption of respondent-3 as held by Supreme Court in Harnek Singh v. Pritam Singh, (2013) 4 SCC 458 but these documents were illegally ignored. The petitioner also filed documents to prove that after death of Bishram, natural father of Amar Chand, he inherited the properties of Bishram although under law an adopted child is totally uprooted from his family, where he was born as held by Supreme Court in Basavarajappa v. Gurubasamma, (2005) 12 SCC 290 . In this case, Supreme Court has further held that ceremony of giving and taking is necessary for a valid adoption. None of the witnesses of respondent-3 could prove ceremonies of giving and taking as held by Naib-Tahsildar. On the date of alleged adoption deed, age of respondent-3 was more than 25 years as such he was disqualified for being adopted under the law. The orders of the Courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. On the date of alleged adoption deed, age of respondent-3 was more than 25 years as such he was disqualified for being adopted under the law. The orders of the Courts below are illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the Counsel for the parties. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, which is a summary proceeding and relevant for fiscal purposes. In view of Section 40-A of the Act, the petitioner has remedy to establish his right over the disputed land in regular suit. The petitioner has raised various grounds challenging validity of adoption of respondent-3 by Mula but nothing has been said about registered will dated 24.02.1989, executed by Mula in favour of respondent-3. Respondent-3 took plea that Mula and his father Bishram (mother's brother's son of Mula) were cousin brothers. Admittedly, Mula was issueless. Respondent-3 claimed that Mula executed a registered will dated 24.02.1989 in his favour. Due execution of the will was proved by attesting witnesses. Registered will dated 24.02.1989 was accepted by appellate and revisional court in preference to unregistered will dated 10.08.1989, of the petitioner. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, is unable to reassess the evidence on record regarding will. If will dated 24.02.1989 was found as valid, then it was well within jurisdiction of respondents-1 and 2 to allow the mutation application of respondent-3. 8. So far as the finding of Naib Tehsildar regarding possession of the petitioner is concerned, Supreme Court in Narayan Laxman Patil v. M/s Gala Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. And others, 2016 (130) RD 159 (SC) held that in order to get mutation of the name in record of right, title of land to be proved by pointing out that the possession was lawful. Thus the lawful possession over the land in dispute is required to be proved. In case the Will set up by the petitioner is taken into account then the Will itself states that possession of the petitioner was un-lawful. Thus merely on the ground of unlawful possession , the petitioner was not entitled for mutation of his name. 9. 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. Thus merely on the ground of unlawful possession , the petitioner was not entitled for mutation of his name. 9. 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 v. Hakam Singh, AIR 1994 SC 1653 , Durga Das v. The Collector, AIR 1996 SC 2786 , Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , State of H.P. v. Keshav Ram, AIR 1997 SC 2719 and Mahila Bajrangi v. Badribai (2003) 2 SCC 464 . 10. 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 proceeding 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 v. Board of Revenue, U.P. and others, 2002 (2) AWC 1311 , Puran Singh v. 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. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.