The execution and validity of a Will require strict adherence to statutory provisions, including proper attestation, which was not proven in this case, rendering the claimed interests void.

Judgment :

Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Appellant-plaintiff has filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC challenging the legality and sustainability of impugned judgment and decree dated 08.10.2012 passed by learned 5^th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2011, whereby learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2011 passed by learned 8^th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 65-A/2010 dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in terms of their status shown in Civil Suit No. 65-A/2010 before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial court seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading therein that the property situated at village Torwa Tehsil and District Bilaspur bearing Khasra Nos. 840, 889/3, and 895, admeasuring 0.47, 0.82, and 0.55 acres respectively (total 1.84 acres) (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) was initially owned by Dhaniram Yadav. Dhaniram purchased the land bearing khasra no. 840 measuring 0.47 acres from Udiya son of Manohar for consideration of Rs. 500/- on 02.07.1961. Land bearing khasra No. 889/3 and 895 measuring 0.82 acre and 0.55 acre was purchased by Dhaniram from Smt. Sukhmat Yadav for consideration of Rs. 1,000/- on 15.05.1970 and came in possession of aforementioned lands. Name of Dhaniram was also mutated in the revenue records vide mutation orders No. 1429 and 1430 dated 30.01.1976. Dhaniram was issue-less and therefore he had kept and brought up plaintiff, daughter of his brother, as his own and continued to live with her along with his wife as family after his retirement from Railways. During lifetime, Dhaniram executed Will on 28.05.2001 bequeathing the suit land to the plaintiff. It is pleaded that defendant No. 1 in greed of property on false and fabricated grounds questioned the mutation order dated 30.01.1976 in favour of Dhaniram in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur which was allowed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to Dhaniram. The order passed by SDO(R.) was put to challenge before the Additional Commissioner Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the order of Commissioner was put to challenge before the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, which, upon reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, was transferred to the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur. During pendency of said revision before the Board of Revenue, Bilaspur, Dhaniram died on 14.03.2002. Plaintiff submitted an application for substitution of her name, which remained pending. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 1 also filed an appeal against the order of mutation in favour of Dhaniram which came to be dismissed. Defendants No. 1 to 3 thereafter influencing Smt. Milapa Bai and Sheela Bai submitted an application in the pending proceeding before the Board of Revenue in a revision filed by Dhaniram (since deceased) on 28.03.2005. The Board of Revenue thereafter dismissed the revision vide order dated 14.09.2005. Application for restoration of revision was filed and also an application claiming herself to be legal heir of late Dhaniram which also came to be dismissed on the ground that plaintiff could seek appropriate relief from the competent civil court. Name of plaintiff continuously recorded based on the registered Will executed in