JUDGMENT :

1. Since an identical issue and common question of law are involved in both the appeals, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Second Appeal No. 7 of 2009 has been filed by the appellant/defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-9-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.10-A/2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19-3-2007 passed in Civil Suit No.26-A/99 by Civil Judge Class-1, Mungeli Bilaspur whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been allowed and counter claim of defendant No.1 has been rejected.

3. Second Appeal No. 8 of 2009 has been filed by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 15- 9-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 7A/2007 partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 19-3-2007 passed in Civil Suit No.26-A/99 by the Civil Judge, Class-1, Mungeli Bilaspur.

4. Both the appeals have been admitted by this court on 27-8-2011 on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether both the courts below have committed an illegality by granting decree of permanent injunction in favour of respondent No.1 Sheikh Rasool relating to 12.50 acres of the land in which he was not in possession at the time of grant of such decree?

(ii) Whether the fnding relating to validity of will of both the courts below is perverse?

5. For sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as shown in the original suit filed before the trial court.

6. The facts, in brief, are that the original plaintiff Smt. Nyazbi who is widow of Alimuddin had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with the regard to the property situated at village Sawa Patwari Halka No.45, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur bearing Khasra No.4 area 1.47 acres, Khasra No.5 area 0.28 acres, Khasra No.8/5 area 3.71 acres, Khasra No.8/9 area 14.32 acres, Khasra No. 304/1 area 4.46 acres total 24.24 acres which in subsequent paragraphs referred to as suit property. Mainly contending that plaintiff's husband and her ancestors were Malgujars. The plaintiff was issue-less and her husband died in the year 1946. In the suit property Khasra Nos. 4 and 5 and 8/5 are owned by the plaintiff which have already been recorded in the revenue records. Earlier, Khasra No. 8/9 and 304/1 were registered in the name of her mother-in-law Armanbi and she had executed the registered Bakshis (gift) on 6-6-1959 and the land bearing Khasra No.8/9 area 14.32 acres and Khasra No.304/1 area 6.46 of acres had also been given to her, possession of the land was also given to her, her name was recorded as land owner as per order dated 21-7-1969 passed by the Revenue Court in Revenue Case No.13-A/6/67-68 as such the plaintiff is the single owner and she is in possession of the suit property, doing agricultural work. As such Defendant No.1 has no possession or title in the suit property and even he is not successor of his in-laws. To justify this fact, family tree has also been mentioned in the plaint. It has been further contended that from bare perusal of the genealogy it is evident that the defendant No.1 is not successor of his mother-in-law or father-in-law Amruddin. The suit property was in possession of Amruddin, plaintiff's husband Alimuddin and Samshuddin. This property was subsequently inherited by her wherein the defendant No.1 has no right. Prior to 1995-96 in the revenue records, name of the plaintiff was only recorded and she was in possession of then said property also. In the year 1995-96 without knowledge of the plaintiff, the name of defendant No.1 was recorded as co-account holder. The foundation of that incorporation in the revenue records is due to death of Wahiuddin who died on 3-3-1944. It is further clarified that Wahiuddin was not the owner of the property, defendant No.1 is not legal heir of Wahiuddin, wife of Wahiuddin was alive and defendant No.1 was ha