Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79049-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14260 of 2025 Petitioner :- Soviya Bano Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Mishra,Rajeev Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. Mr. Diwakar Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client took good care of one Sagirunnisha. She made will dated 23rd September, 2022 in favour of his client, which was duly registered. However, subsequently the testator, by document dated 9th June, 2023, cancelled the will. It was wrongfully registered by the Registrar, thereby giving effect to the cancellation. He relies on view taken by a larger Bench of this Court on judgment dated 18th May, 2018 answering questions referred by the Division Bench. The larger Bench relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 761 to declare that if a registered document was illegal or if there was any irregularity, then the same must be challenged by invoking an appropriate proceeding before a Court of competent jurisdiction. He seeks interference. Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the document dated 9th June, 2023 was duly presented for registration and it stood registered. There is no cause for interference. The writ petition be dismissed. The Supreme Court had declared above relied upon proposition where the case was of a registered document cancelled by executive fiat, meaning thereby, registration of the document stood subsequently cancelled. Here, the testator had made will dated 23rd September, 2022, duly presented it for registration and had it registered. Subsequently, during her life time she executed another document cancelling the will. Said document is dated 9th June, 2023. She also duly presented the subsequent document for registration. It was registered. Thereby, the testator herself cancelled her will. She then passed away. Petitioner is beneficiary under the cancelled will. Previous wills automatically get cancelled or superseded by subsequent wills. In this case, the testator had herself willed and thereafter cancelled it. Registration of the will was not cancelled by the Registrar but a subsequent document presented for registration, registered. Effect of the two registered documents is that the will stands cancelled. Petitioner gets no assistance from Satya Pal Anand (supra). There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Ashutosh ( Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad