1. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed against judgment & decree dated 14-8-97 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh in Civil Appeal No.18A/95, affirming judgment & decree dated 31-7-95 passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Manendragarh in Civil Suit No.3A/94, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, has been admitted for consideration on the following substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the finding recorded by the Court below that the appellant was mistress of Navrang Singh; is perverse, as it is based on material which is not germane to decision of that fact?

(2) Whether the respondent No.1 has proved the execution of will dated 4-8-85, Ex.D-1, in accordance with law?

(3) Whether the document, Ex.D-1 has been proved beyond all reasonable suspicion, to be the will of Nawrang Singh Gond, in favour of the respondent No.1?

2. As per plaint allegations, the appellant herein, legally wedded wife of Navrang, has inherited the property left by her husband Navrang, but respondent No.1 - relative of Navrang, has succeeded in mutation of his name in the revenue record on the basis of forged will dated 4-8-85, therefore, suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/appellant.

3. By filing written statement, respondent No.1 has denied the allegations made in the plaint and has specifically alleged that the appellant was keep/mistress of deceased Navrang Singh, she was not member of Raj Gond and member of Singraulia Gond. Navrang Singh has executed will on 4-8-85 in favour of respondent No.1 and on the basis of aforesaid will which has been subsequently registered, respondent No.1 has mutated his name in the revenue record.

4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, both the Courts below have held that the appellant was keep/mistress of Navrang Singh and, not legally wedded wife, and have held that respondent No.1 has proved due execution of will. On the basis of aforesaid finding, suit and appeal filed on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff have been dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused both judgments & decrees and records of both the Courts below.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that long residing together of the appellant with Navrang Singh has not been disputed, inter alia, admitted by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 himself has deposed that after death of first wife, Navrang Singh has married the appellant which was sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant was legally wedded wife of Navrang Singh. In order to prove conscious and lawful execution of will, respondent No.1 was under obligation to prove valid attestation of will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. He has not examined any attesting witness of the will, though the appellant has examined attesting witnesses Dhaneshwar Singh (PW 2) & Ramcharan (PW 3) who have deposed that Navrang Singh has not executed any will. Undisputedly, they have been examined by the appellant, therefore, it would not be presumed that they will support the case of respondent No.1, but still respondent No.1 was having opportunity to prove due execution of will by examining other attesting witnesses Ramgopal Panch and Suryapratap Singh - Sarpanch, the 4th attesting witness of the will, who was alive during the course of trial, which has been admitted by defendant witness No.2 Jagnarayan (DW 2) in para 4 of his cross-examination. However, for the reasons best known to respondent No.1, he has failed to examine the attesting witnesses to prove valid execution of will. Evidence of Jagnarayan (DW 2) - scribe of the will, itself is not sufficient to prove valid attestation of will. Learned counsel further submits that undisputedly, the appellant was residing with deceased Navrang Singh. Navrang Singh died on 2-6-87, but respondent No.1 has not applied for registrati