1. This is defendants Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 2-1-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Baikunthpur in Civil Appeal No. 3-A/99 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29-8-1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Baikunthpur in Civil Suit No. 05-A/1991.

2. One Nandlal was the owner of the suit land total area 16.29 situated in village Kochila and 1.30 acres situated in village Patna, district Korea. Plaintiff No.1 is his grandson, the appellant and respondent No.4 Nankibai are his daughters, respondent No.3 Ramsai is his son and Phoolkunwar (since deceased) was his widow.

3. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration of his title based on a Will deed dated 13-4-1983 allegedly executed by Nandlal in his and his brother Sugrivs (since deceased) favour, possession and mesne profits. It is the plaintiffs case that pursuant to Will deed, he and his brother Sugriv became its owner and after the death of Nandlal and Sugriv, he became the sole owner.

4. The defendant No.1, widow of Nandlal and Ramsai, son of Nandlal supported the plaintiffs case. One of the daughters Nanki Bai did not appear in the case and remained ex parte.

5. Plaintiffs case was contested by the appellant herein by denying the execution of Will deed in plaintiffs favour. It is the case of the appellant that the Will was not executed by Nandlal and is a forged and fabricated document.

6. The trial Court dismissed the suit, finding inter alia, the Will deed (Ex. P.1) is a forged and fabricated document.

7. The plaintiff preferred first appeal there-against, which was allowed by the Court below. Hence, this second appeal.

8. This Court, vide order dated 6-2-2008, admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:

Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding execution of Will by Nandlal on 13-4-1983?â€

9. Counsel for both the parties have filed their written synopsis.

10. As per Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Will deed (Ex. P.1) is invalid and shrouded by several unexplained suspicious circumstances, (i) presence of Ramsai, father of the plaintiff, at the time of execution of Will (Ex. P.1), whose relations were not cordial with deceased Nandlal, (ii) at the time of execution of Will, testator Nandlal was ill and was not in sound disposition state of mind and was not in a position to understand the nature and effect of the disposition, (iii) stamp paper, on which, Will was executed was purchased on 22-3-1982 whereas the Will was executed on 13-4-1983, (iv) from the stamp used in execution of Ex. P.1, it is not clear who has purchased the stamp, (v) the Will was a conditional Will and suit filed before death of Phoolkunwar was premature, (vi) at the time of execution of Will and at the time of mutation, Ramsai was present but he did not disclose the fact of execution of Will by late Nandlal, (vii) the plaintiff and Sugriv (since deceased) were minors, and therefore, it is impossible that due to their care and affection Nandlal had executed the Will in their favour, (viii) the Will was executed at Patna whereas one of the witnesses was belonging to Rampur, (ix) Phoolkunwar, widow of Nandlal, was also not examined; (x) the appellate Court also ignored the statement of Sonsai P.W.2, who has stated that Nandlal was not in fit condition at the time of execution of Will.

It was further contended, the Court below has grossly erred in reversing the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding execution of Will by meeting the reasons assigned by the trial Court, and therefore, the judgment of Court below is not sustainable in law.

11. On the other hand, as per Shri A. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the Will is not shrouded with any suspicious circumstances; the wife of testator has supported the execution of Will by her husband - N