KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the appellants seek to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.4.2004 passed by the learned trial court in a suit filed by the respondents for partition and declaration which was decreed in favour of the respondents and against the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that Smt. Vidyawanti was the widow of Sh. Brij Lal Sharma who was the owner of the property bearing Quarter no.28/20, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and after his death vide conveyance deed and lease dated 31.10.67 the said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Vidyawanti. Smt. Vidyawanti died on 5.2.90 and was survived by 4 sons and 1 daughter. The respondent no.1/plaintiff no. 1 is the widow of Sh.Yash Pal Sharma, one of the son?s of Smt. Vidyawanti and plaintiff no.2 and 3/respondent no.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of Sh.Yash Pal Sharma. The appellant no.1 is the widow of defendant no.1 and appellant no.2 is the widow of defendant no.2, appellant no.3 and 4 being the children of appellant no.2. The bone of contention between the parties is that the appellants allege that Smt.Vidyawanti died leaving behind a will dated 22.12.1987 bequeathing her property in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 while the respondent no.1 to 3 alleged that she died intestate. Therefore a suit for partition and declaration of the said property was filed by the respondent no.1 to 3 which vide judgment and decree dated 29.4.2004 was decreed in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants assailing the said judgment and decree dated 29.4.2004, vehemently argued that the appellants could successfully prove and establish the execution of the holograph Will dated 22.12.1987 through defence evidence especially with the help of the evidence of two attesting witnesses and also by adducing the evidence of hand writing expert who in his evidence has proved that the signatures of the testator, late Smt. Vidya Wanti, on the holograph Will were genuine after the same were compared with her admitted signatures on the rent agreements Ex. PW1/D1 and Ex. PW1/D2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned trial court has given unnecessary weightage to the minor variations and discrepancies in the evidence of the said two attesting witnesses who were cross examined after a gap of 16 years. The contention of the counsel for the appellant was that it is but natural that due to such a long gap, minor discrepancies would arise in natural course but such minor discrepancies could not have the effect of disbelieving their testimonies deposing their personal presence at the time of execution of the Will in question and also their having duly witnessed the execution of the said Will. In support of his argument, counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Shashi Kumar Banarjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Banarjee, AIR 1964SCC529.

5. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned trial court gave undue weightage to the insertion of the registration details of the lease deed by the testator in the said holograph Will without taking the help of the said registered lease deed. The contention raised by the counsel was that there was nothing unusual on the part of the testator to have remembered such details at the time of setting down her hands at the holograph Will. Counsel for the appellants also submitted that the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) was duly confronted with the two documents i.e. Rent agreement and agreement regarding security which were duly signed and executed by late Smt. Vidya Wanti and the same pertain to almost the same contemporaneous period as that of the period of the Will and she had duly identified the signatures of late Smt. Vidya