JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned standing counsel has been accepted on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the private-respondent No. 3 is represented by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, Advocate. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners assail the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ayodhya (for short ‘DDC’) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed affirming the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Ayodhya (for short ‘SOC’) as a result, the objections filed by the private-respondent No. 3 were allowed (originally filed by her mother Smt. Dashrath Dei, who expired during the proceedings before the SOC). 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the commencement of the consolidation operations, the property in dispute was initially recorded in the base year in the name of Basudev Singh (the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) and Dashrath Dei widow of Ram Lakhan Singh. 5. The contention is that the property in dispute belonged to Ram Lakhan Singh. Upon his death, the property had devolved on his son Makhdoom Singh. Makhdoom Singh is said to be mentally infirm and also suffered from disability of being deaf and dumb. 6. It is also the case that Makhdoom Singh had executed a Will bequeathing the property to his mother Dashrath Dei and his maternal uncle (Basudev Singh), the real brother of Dashrath Dei. On the basis of the Will, Basudev Singh had got his name mutated vide order dated 10.02.1984. The said order was never contested, however, while the village was in consolidation, Dashrath Dei had filed her objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act, 1953 (in short ‘the Act of 1953’) stating that the name of Basudev Singh has been incorrectly entered and moreover it was also stated that Dashrath Dei had already executed a sale-deed in favour of her daughter Savitri Devi, therefore, the said property should be recorded in the name of Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi only. 7. 7. This was contested by the petitioners, who claimed on the basis of the Will and a ground was taken that the mutation order dated 10.02.1984 categorically noticed that Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi had furnished two affidavits wherein it was admitted to them that Makhdoom Singh had executed a Will in favour of Dashrath Dei and Basudev Singh and in such circumstances, Dashrath Dei had her half share and the other half share was that of her brother Basudev Singh. 8. It is urged by the petitioners that these two affidavits were considered while passing the order, but the fact remains that during the entire proceedings either before the Consolidation Officer or before the SOC, while filing an appeal, it was never disputed by the private-respondent that Dashrath Dei had not filed the said affidavits in the proceedings. 9. It is further urged that a ground of fraud which was raised by the private-respondent was not substantiated and in a cursory manner, the order dated 10.02.1984 was set aside by allowing the appeal which is in derogation of the material on record and as such the SOC exceeded his jurisdiction while allowing the appeal. 10. It is further urged that the DDC also affirmed the said order without considering the import of the two affidavits filed by Dashrath Dei in her lifetime in the proceedings and as such on the basis of the admission of Dashrath Dei, she and her daughter were estopped from assailing the rights of the petitioners and by fling the said affidavits, it amounted to acquiescence and this aspect has not been considered or properly dealt by the DDC, hence, the impugned orders are bad and not sustainable in law. 11. Per contra, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the private-respondent No. 3 has urged that fraud vitiates all proceedings. 11. Per contra, Dr. R.S. Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohiuddin Khan, learned counsel for the private-respondent No. 3 has urged that fraud vitiates all proceedings. It is stated that the order dated 10.02.1984 which is the sheet anchor upon which the petitioners stake their claims has not seen the light of the day as during entire proceedings right from the Consolidation Officer till the stage before the DDC, it was not placed on record so much so that the basic title of the petitioners is derived from the Will said to have been executed by Makhdoom Singh and surprisingly the said Will was also not placed on record or made part of these proceedings. 12. It has further been urged that while filing the appeal, a specific ground was taken that the entire proceedings which led to the passing of the order dated 10.02.1984 was mired in fraud and deceit. A specific ground was also raised that Makhdoom Singh was deaf and dumb and mentally infirm and under such circumstances, Makhdoom Singh could not have executed the Will. Even otherwise, it has been stated that Dashrath Dei being the mother got herself appointed as a guardian of Makhdoom Singh and thereafter taking permission from the District Judge concerned, some part of the property was sold to a third party and all these facts clearly indicated that the theory set up by the petitioners claiming title on the basis of the Will was farcical. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that this aspect was not considered by the Consolidation Officer rather it was swayed by the factum by the two alleged affidavits and without taking note of the fact as to whether merely on the basis of an affidavit title could have been transferred. 14. The findings have been returned by the Consolidation Officer which was assailed before the Appellate Court who set it aside and the order of the SOC was affirmed by the DDC. In such circumstances, it is urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 16. In such circumstances, it is urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 16. Insofar as the basic facts are concerned, there is not much dispute between the parties inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioners that they derived title from their predecessors, who acquired rights in Khata No. 293 on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Makhdoom Singh in favour of Dashrath Dei, his mother and Basudev Singh his maternal-uncle (Mama). However, from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is primarily and solely based on the two affidavits said to have been filed by Savitri Devi and Dashrath Dei. Even if the aforesaid two affidavits are considered and a best case for the petitioner is taken even then it would only indicate that both Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi stated that they have half share and other half share belonged to Basudev Singh. 17. It will not be out of place to mention here that the relationship between Dashrath Dei and Basudev Singh is that of real sister and brother and the basic first principles which are applicable would be whether the title can pass to a party merely by admission or as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of acquiescence or estoppel. 18. This issue may not be detain this Court for long inasmuch as this has already been settled way back by the Apex Court in AIR 1966 SC 605 Ambika Prasad Thakur and Others v. Ram Ekbal Rai and Others, wherein it has been held that the title to a property cannot pass merely by admission. 19. This fact apart, the other issue that is to be seen that even though Dashrath Dei and Savitri Devi may have filed affidavits as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but the fact remains that the Will which is the focal point of the rights as claimed by the petitioners did not see the light of the day so much so the date of the Will also could not be stated either in the proceedings before the Consolidation Authorities nor before this Court. 20. 20. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the parties and both the learned counsel have stated that there is no reference to the date of the Will said to have been executed by Makhdoom Singh. 21. It has been pointed out by Dr. Pande that the infirmity of Makhdoom Singh was also explained as the order by which the Dashrath Dei was appointed an a guardian was also placed on record where she received the permission to sell the property. These documents were placed to buttress the submissions that the petitioners had resorted to material concealment and Makhdoom Singh was in no position to execute the alleged Will, hence, in such circumstances, the order dated 10.02.1984 could not be made binding on the parties. 22. The reason ascribed by the Consolidation Officer to pass the order dated 10.02.1984 was not sufficient and the challenge to it before the SOC who set aside the order and allowed the appeal of the private-respondent is based on proper appreciation of the material on record. Even though a revision was filed before the DDC but no material could be placed on record regarding source of title of the petitioners i.e. Will and how it was proved in any proceedings way back in the year 1984 or subsequently instituted in terms of the objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act of 1953. 23. It is also now well settled that a person, who claims right on the basis of a Will irrespective whether the Will is contested or not yet the said Will required to be proved as provided under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even to this extent, there was no material to support the contention of the petitioners. 24. This Court finds that this aspect has been adequately dealt by the SOC as well as DDC and it being pure findings of fact which is based on material on record suffers from no patent illegality. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the petition. 25. In view of the aforesaid, the petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. The judgment of the SOC dated 06.05.2022 and the judgment passed by the DDC dated 11.03.2024 are upheld. Costs are made easy.