JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. The only point involved in this writ petition is regarding interpretation of a Will executed by Late Laxmi Narain Srivastava on 27.2.1970.
2. During consolidation proceedings petitioner filed objections under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer, Ghazipur stating therein that the agricultural land situate in Ghazipur, which earlier belonged to Laxmi Narain Srivastava, should be recorded in favour of petitioner-applicant on the basis of the aforesaid Will.
3. Respondents 4 and 5 contested the proceedings and contended that even if the alleged Will was executed by Laxmi Narain Srivastava, it was confined to his agricultural land and other immovable property situate in district Nainital. The Consolidation officer, Ghazipur found that the Will appeared to have been executed. However, it held that the Will related to the immovable properties of the testator which were situate in district Nainital and not to the agricultural land of the testator, which was situate in district Ghazipur. The Consolidation Officer, therefore, rejected the objection of the petitioner and directed the recording of the name of the contesting respondents in the revenue records after scoring off the name of the deceased tenure holder Laxmi Narain Srivastava. The Consolidation Officer passed the order on 27.3.1973. Appeal filed against the same by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Ghazipur on 8.11.1973. 'Thereafter, petitioner filed revision. The revision was numbered as Revision No. 113 / 11 of 1973. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur on 19.7.1974 dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition.
4. The alleged Will is Annexure "1" to the writ petition and in the Will specific mention is made regarding agricultural property and two houses situate in district Nainital. In the Will it is mentioned that testator has no son, his wife has died in the year 1932 and he had only two daughters who had been married long before and in this manner he had fulfilled his liability in respect of his daughters and out of the two daughers one had died and the other daughter was residing in her Sasural comfortably. Thereafter it is mentioned in the Will that the petitioner is his nephew and after the death of his father, testator has brought him up like the son and he is very much attached to the petitioner. It is also mentioned that the petitioner will be owner of the property mentioned in the Will i.e. situate in district Nainital as well as other immovable properties of the testator. Thereafter it is mentioned that petitioner will be owner of the property after the death of the testator which is mentioned, below and the houses related with the, said agricultural property situated in district Nainital and agricultural accessories like tractor, machines etc. and movables, jewelry and cash including the property which the testator may acquire afterward. Some furniture and utensils belonging to the petitioner, which were lying in the house of petitioner at Lucknow were also mentioned in the Will. The last sentence of the Will states that in case after the death of the testator any other person laid claim to the property of the testator, then the said claim would be invalid on the basis of the said Will.
5. By reading the Will as a whole, it is quite clear that testator did not make any mention regarding his agricultural property situate in district Ghazipur which is in dispute in the instant writ petition. The Will gives an impression that either the testator had forgotten about the said property or had no concern with the same.
6. Under Section 88 of Succession Act it is provided that in case there is any conflict between two clauses of the Will, then the subsequent clause shall prevail. It is correct that basically the Will was in respect of testator's immovable property situate in district Nainital. However, in the earlier part of the Will the testator stated that one of his daughters was well settled in the Sasural and the other daughter had died. At that juncture nothing was said regarding the interest of the surviving daughter or the children of the deceased daughter. Rather, the intention of the testator appears to be that his daughter or children of pre-deceased daughter did not need any of his properties. The last clause of the Will, which states that any claim upon the property of the testator after his death shall be invalid on the basis of the Will makes it quite clear that the testator was bequeathing his entire property to the legatee including the property mentioned specifically in the Will as well as other property of the testator which was not mentioned in the Will.
7. Even though the omission of the property in dispute in the Will appears to be strange, however, by reading the whole Will it is more probable that the testator bequeathed his entire property, specifically mentioned as well as not mentioned there through the said Will.
8. Accordingly, I do not agree with the interpretation of the Will adopted by the courts below. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the three impugned judgments are quashed. Objection of the petitioner before the Consolidation Officer is allowed and it is directed that the name of the petitioner shall be recorded over the land in dispute left behind by Laxmi Narain Lal Srivastava.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.