1. The substantial questions of law involved, formulated and to be answered in this defendants' second appeal are as under: -

“(a) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding the Will as not proved by comparing signature of the deceased – Jaishree Pandey without there being any report of any hand writing expert on record?

(b) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding the Will as not proved on the circumstance that Jaishree Pandey had filed a suit against Savitri and Rameshwar in the year 1981?”

2. With the consent of the parties, the following substantial question of law, which arises for determination, is additionally framed: -

“Whether both the Courts below are justified in holding that Will Ex.D-7 has not been proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872?”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept notice on the additional substantial question of law, waives-off the formal service of notice, noted the same and agree to argue finally.

4. The following genealogical tree would demonstrate the relationship amongst the parties: -

Jaishree Pandey (31.10.83)
Rupkali = (wife, died on 14.03.1990)
Phoolmati Devi (plaintiff)	Savitri Devi W/o Rameshwar Prasad Dubey D5
	Dinesh D1	Akhilesh D2	Mithlesh D3	Awadesh D4

      (Parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown in the plaint before the trial Court.)

5. Smt. Phoolmati Devi – original plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the first appeal, filed a suit for declaration that the Will deed dated 7-9-1983 (Ex.D-7) executed by the original holder of the suit property – Jaishree Pandey in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 is null and void and the plaintiff being one of the daughters of Jaishree Pandey is entitled for ½ share in the suit property stating that her father Jaishree Pandey – original holder, died on 31-10-1983 and defendants No.1 to 4 – sons of defendant No.5, on the basis of said Will dated 7-9-1983, got their names mutated in the revenue records vide Ex.D-6 on 22-9-1987 (Ex.D-6) by filing an application on 2-1-1987.

6. Defendants No.1 to 5 filed their joint written statement denying the adverse and contrary allegations in the plaint and stating that Late Jaishree Pandey, their maternal grandfather, has executed a Will dated 7-9-1983 in their favour (defendants No.1 to 4) and they have rightly got the suit land recorded in their names as they are already continuing in possession of the suit land.

7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit holding that parties are in joint possession of the suit property and Late Jaishree Pandey, original holder, has not executed Ex.D-7 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 and the plaintiff has ½ share in the suit property and is entitled for partition and decree of injunction which was upheld by the first appellate Court in first appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 5. In second appeal preferred by defendants No.1 to 5, substantial questions of law and additional substantial question of law have been formulated and set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

8. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein / defendants No.1 to 5, would submit that both the Courts below have grossly erred in holding that defendants No.1 to 4, being the propounders of the Will, have not proved attestation and execution of the Will Ex.D-7 dated 7-9-1983 in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as they have proved the will by examining one of the attesting witnesses Dilbaran (DW-3) who has categorically disclosed the fact of execution and attestation of Will in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 at the dictation of the testator and as such, the Will is duly proved as the law required.