JUDGMENT :

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant No. 1 was admitted for hearing on 31/03/2008 by formulating the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether due to a clear denial by the appellant/defendant Trilochan regarding the execution of will dated 03.10.1975 by Ramdhani, the Courts below were not justified in holding that the said will is not required to be proved in accordance with law?”

[For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their status and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.]

2. The suit property was admittedly held by Ramdhani, who had two wives namely Likhaniyabai and Sirvatiyabai respectively. Out of his wedlock with Likhaniyabai, Ramdhani had one daughter namely Leelawati and defendant No. 2 is the son of Leelawati; and out of his wedlock with Sirvatiyabai, Ramdhani had one daughter namely Kheermati and plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are sons of Kheermati.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 2 filed an application under Section 178 of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Court of Naib Tahsildar, Pendra Road wherein by order dated 28/04/1994 (Ex. D/5) the Tahsil