JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.1980 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Lucknow and the order dated 25.9.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow as also the order dated 31.10.2019 again passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow. 3. It has been submitted that one Chandrika Prasad son of Bal Kishan resident of Village Kakrabad, Pargana, Tehsil and District Lucknow was the recorded tenure holder of Plot Nos. 181, 574, 816, 833, 1084, 1154, 1284 and 1032. The total plots measured about 3 Bigha, 17 Biswan and 6 Biswansi. Chandrika Prasad bequeathed his entire property movable and immovable through a registered Will dated 24.7.1970 in favour of Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman, intending that its management shall be entrusted to three petitioners herein. In consolidation proceedings, the plot numbers were given new khasra numbers and the property was consolidated with area ad-measuring 0.8750 hectare. On the death of Chandrika Prasad, mutation proceedings were initiated by the Consolidation Officer as at that time, consolidation operations were in progress. In such mutation proceedings, the petitioners claimed that they succeeded to the property as Managers. The registered Will was produced before the Consolidation Officer, but their claim was rejected and the name of Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman alone was shown by the Consolidation Officer in the revenue records. The petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 22.12.2017. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by an order dated 25.9.2018, dismissed the revision on its merit as well as on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.9.2018, the petitioners filed an application under section 41 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read with section 202 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, this time for correcting the mistake in the order dated 25.9.2018, but their application has also been rejected by the order dated 31.10.2019. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the registered Will clearly indicate the petitioners to be the Managers of the property, which was bequeathed for the benefit of deity Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman, the petitioners automatically became Managers through operation of the Will after the death of Chandrika Prasad and there was no claim as such, which had to be proved before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer in recording the name of only Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman as owner of the property in question has committed a grave error. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul and others, 1976 (1) SCC 630 . Learned Counsel for the petitioners has read out Para-8 of the said judgment, which is being quoted hereinbelow: "8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established: "(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nana Lal, AIR 1951 SC 139 : (1950) SCR 766, 772,) (2) In construing the language of the will the Court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair (Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy 41 IA 51, 72 : 21 IC 339 : 15 Bom LR 1010, and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense... But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. (Venkata Narasimha case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar, AIR 1951 SC 103 : (1950) SCR 949, 955) (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer, AIR 1953 SC 7 : (1953) SCR 232, 240,) (4) The Court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The Court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. The Court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das, AIR 1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834, 839, 842) (5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the Will. (Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilda Brite Mrs., AIR 1964 SC 1323 : (1964) 2 SCR 722 , 735)" 6. This Court has considered the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30.1.1980. It is clear that the claim to be Managers of the property has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. The property being owned by the deity, the name of deity was to be recorded in the revenue records. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said order. There cannot be any claim of the petitioners for succession on the basis of Will when they are only Managers of the property as intended by the testator himself. 7. From a perusal of the judgment cited before this Court, it is clearly established that the intention of the testator has to be determined by the Court from the language used. When the language is ambiguous that the Court may place itself in the shoes of the testator and look into the surrounding circumstances, make its own interpretation. 7. From a perusal of the judgment cited before this Court, it is clearly established that the intention of the testator has to be determined by the Court from the language used. When the language is ambiguous that the Court may place itself in the shoes of the testator and look into the surrounding circumstances, make its own interpretation. The registered Will, has been filed as Annexure-2 to the petition clearly states that the property is being bequeathed to the deity and the petitioners would remain Managers. The ownership of the deity having been established by the language of the Will itself, there is no question of this Court going into the surrounding circumstances and determining anything else than what the testator himself determined while bequeathing the property to the deity. 8. A copy of the registered Will has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This Court has perused the same. It is evident from the same that the petitioners were only intended to be Managers. They were not intended to be owners of the property in question. Mutation in the name of Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman, therefore, by the Consolidation Officer has been duly made as the property continues to be owned by the deity. 9. The writ petition being misconceived is dismissed. 10. It is open for the petitioners to get their rights established to manage the property in question before the competent Civil Court.