S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by defendants-appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below.

2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 04 of 1979 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents with respect to 251/2 decimals (now 21 decimals) of C.S. Plot No. 232 (part) which is now R.S. Plot No. 495/1128 appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 2 (part) which is now R.S. Khata No. 110 of Thana No. 204 in Mouza Aminabad Semapur within Barari Police station in the district of Katihar for the following reliefs:

(a) Declaration that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Late Jharoo Sah having inherited suit property detailed in Schedule a of the plaint. Declaration that the document purported to be Will of Late Jharoo Sah was created by fraud & forgery of defendants duping Jharoo Sah to put his sign on it without understanding its nature and implication and defendants did not get any interest in the suit property on its basis.

(b) Cost of suit and any other relief.

3. The said suit was contested by the defendants and after considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for deciding the title suit.

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit against defendants?

(iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

(iv) Whether the registered deed of Will dated 02.02.1970, purported to be executed by Jharu Sah is valid, genuine and effective, and had Jharu Sah bequeathed his properties to defendants?

(v) Are the plaintiffs legal heirs of Late Jharu Sah and have the properties left by Jharu Sah devolved on the plaintiffs?

(vi) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the suit?

4. After considering the arguments led and evidences produced by both the parties, learned Subordinate Judge, III, Katihar vide his judgment and decree dated 30.07.1992 decreed the suit on contest with cost after arriving at the following findings:

(a) Initial burden to prove that the deed of Will in question is valid lies with defendants.

(b) Evidence and circumstances speak a volume against the genuineness of deed of Will in question.

(c) Contents of deed of Will in question also creates suspicion against the aforesaid deed.

(d) Ext.-E/3 is certified copy of High Court order in F.A. No. 193 of 1985 filed by defendants against order of abatement of Probate Case.

(e) There was no reasonable occasion for Jharu Sah to execute a deed of Will in favour of his nephews depriving his own daughters and their progenies from getting his properties.

(f) Documentary evidences are during pendency of this suit and hence it has no effect on this suit.

(g) Defendants could not discharge the initial burden of proving proper and valid execution of alleged Will and its registration, hence it could not be proved in accordance with law.

(h) Deed of Will was not executed by Jharu Sah out of his free will and after understanding its contents and implication.

(i) At present defendants have taken possession and management of suit properties.

(j) Deed of Will is not valid, genuine or effective and Jharu Sah has not bequeathed his properties to defendants.

(k) Plaintiffs are legal heirs of Jharu Sah and his properties have devolved upon them.

(l) Suit is not barred by limitation.

(m) Registered deed of Will dated 2.2.1970 by Jharu Sah is not his last Will and he had not bequeathed his properties to defendants through that Will.

5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 21 of 1992 and after considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned court of appeal below formulated the following points for deciding the title appeal:

(i) Whether the registered deed of will dated 02.02.1970 is a valid and genuine document or is an outcome of fraud and forgery committed by the defendants on Late Jharu Sah?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of