The burden of proof lies on the propounder of the Will to establish its validity and the competence of the testator, and to remove any suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence.

1. This is defendants' first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'the C.P.C.') against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 18-A/2002 by the 4th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raigarh whereby and whereunder the plaintiff's suit has been decreed.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 - Chandra Sekhar and respondent No.1/plaintiff have died and their legal representatives were brought on record.

3. Facts of the case in brief are as under:

(i) The original plaintiff (since deceased) filed a civil suit for declaration of his title over the suit property i.e. house described in Schedule-A, situated at Raigarh and agricultural lands situated at village Sahaspur, Tahsil Sarangarh, total area 2.631 hectares described in Schedule-B, for recovery of possession of the house property, described in Schedule-A and for permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his possession over the agricultural lands described in Schedule-B of the plaint, inter alia on the grounds: the suit property was self-earned property of late Samaru Ram i.e. his father, who bequeathed the suit property in plaintiff's favour vide registered Will deed (Ex.P.I) dated 06.03.1986. Samaru Ram died on 23.01.1994 at Sarangarh. Thereafter, on the strength of aforesaid Will, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit property and also got his name mutated in the revenue records.

(ii) According to the plaintiff, the original defendants - Dayashankar and Chandra Sekhar are the sons of late Samaru Ram from his second wife. The plaintiff and his father late Samaru Ram were residing in the house situated in front of Sarangarh hospital whereas the appellants were residing with their mother in the house situated at Beerpara, Sarangarh. The original defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants') obtained his signature forcibly on a blank stamp paper and got their names mutated in the revenue records along with the plaintiff and started disputing plaintiff's title. As per the plaintiff, on the bas s of genuine and valid registered Will deed dated 06.03.1986, he became the absolute owner of the suit property.

(iii) The defence, in a nutshell, to the suit inter alia is that the suit property was not self-earned property of late Samaru Ram but was purchased from joint income of late Samaru Ram and defendants and is their joint family property; late Samaru Ram had no authority to execute the Will in plaintiff's favour; the alleged Will is forged and fabricated and does not confer any title on the plaintiff and suit is liable to be dismissed.

(iv) According to the defendants, late Samaru Ram, in order to maintain peace between his two wives i.e. Nanki Bai @ Saili Bai and Nanbai, affected partition in his lifetime and allotted 5 acres of land situated in village Sahaspur and a house situated at Beerpara in favour of original defendants and their mother and allotted 1 ½ acre of land and house situated at Jailpara to plaintiff's mother Nanki Bai @ Saili and started living with her separately.

(v) The learned trial Court, after framing issues, recorded the evidence of parties.

(vi) The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment decreed the plaintiff's suit finding inter alia the Will (Ex.P.1) is a genuine and valid document; suit property was not partitioned between the parties by late Samaru Ram during his lifetime; the suit property is self-earned property of late Samaru and is not their ancestral property. The plaintiff became absolute owner of the property, on the strength of Will dated 6.3.1986.

4. Shri Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the Will deed is not genuine document; was got executed by the plaintiff in his favour taking disadvantage of late Samaru's old age and infirmity; has not been proved in the manner, as required by Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (henceforth 'the Act of 1872) and Section 63 (c) of the Indian Successi