Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial question of law involved, formulated and to be answered in the second appeal preferred by the defendants is as under:-

"Whether the finding of the learned first Appellate Court that the will deed dated 25.05.1996 executed by late Narkohlin Bai in favour of the plaintiff, has been proved by the plaintiff and whether it is legally justified in view of the material available on records."

For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.

2. The suit property was originally owned by Narkohlin Bai, widow of Ganga. She executed a Will in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 25.5.96 (Ex.P-2). The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that he is title-holder of the suit land on the strength of Will dated 25.5.96 (Ex.P-2) executed by Narkohlin Bai, yet defendants No. 1 and 2, daughters of Narkohlin Bai, are trying to dispossess him from the suit land.

3. Defendants No. 1 and 2 set-up counter-claim with respect to the suit property apart from other properties. The trial Court after appreciating oval and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.8.2003, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. However, allowed the counter-claim preferred by defendants No. 1 and 2 with respect to khasra Nos. 259, 196 and 198. In appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court partly allowed the appeal and granted decree in favour of the plaintiff to the property, which is subject-matter of Will, against which, this second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, in which substantial question of law has been formulated, which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, would submit that the first appellate Court is unjustified in holding that Will dated 25.5.96 (Ex.P-2) allegedly executed by Narkohlin Bai in favour of plaintiff-Kartik Das is proved in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter called "the Act of 1925") read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1872") by recording a finding, which is perverse to record and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff, would support the impugned judgment and decree and submit that the first appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties herein and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. The short question for consideration is whether the Will (Ex.P-2) has been proved and established by the plaintiff in view of the provisions contained in Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

8. It is trite law that a will as an instrument of testamentary disposition of property being a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's acquisitions during his lifetime, to be acted upon only on his/her demise, it is no longer res integra, that it carries with it an overwhelming element of sanctity. Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 615.

9. In order to consider the plea raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

10. Section 63 of the Act of 1925 provides as under:-

"63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:-

(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix h