COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) 1367/2007 (Old No. 41940/1998) Sirajuddin …………Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue & Others. ……………Respondents Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 23rd July, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.9.1998 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad, which is contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. 2. Rashid Ahmed, Sharif Ahmed and Middu i.e. respondent no. 4,5, and 6 are own brothers of petitioner Sirajuddin. After the death their father, Sri Alauddin, a suit was instituted by the petitioner for partition of the property claiming 1/4th share in the land in dispute. Respondent no. 6 Middu accepted the share in accordance with the plaint, but respondent no. 4 & 5 contested the suit on the ground that a WILL was executed by Sri Alauddin, giving 6.29 acres of land in disputed to respondent no. 4 & 5 and 5.29 acres to respondent no. 6 and petitioner. The trial court vide its order dated 10.3.1986 passed the decree declaring the shares to each one of them on the basis of the WILL. Aggrieved with the order dated 10.3.1986, petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Additional commissioner (Administration), Garhwal Division, Pauri vide his order dated 28.12.1989 declaring 1/4th share to each i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 4, 5 & 6. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 4 & 5 preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad, which was allowed vide the impugned order dated 8.9.1998, setting aside the order passed by the Additional commissioner and affirming the order and decree passed by the trial court. 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. After going the materials available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as second appellate court do not call for any interference by this Court and the case is concluded by finding of fact. The Board of Revenue has recorded a clear cut finding that the WILL of Allauddin is proved beyond doubt. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove his case before the court below and the findings recorded by the Board of Revenue are affirmed. The WILL in dispute is proved and share has been given to the parties according to the said WILL. As such, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 23.7.2008 Prabodh