The main legal point established in the judgment is the authentication of the partnership deed, the execution of the Will and the Codicil, and the exclusion of natural heirs from the business and tenancy rights.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. By the present common decision the above-captioned appeals are being disposed of. Since FAO(OS) No.253/1998 and RFA(OS) No.4/1999 are being allowed, learned counsel for the appellant states that FAO(OS) No.585/2006 may be dismissed as not pressed.

2. Accordingly, we record at the outset that FAO(OS) No.585/2006 is dismissed as not pressed.

3. We now proceed to deal with FAO(OS) No.253/1998 and RFA(OS) No.4/1999.

4. FAO(OS) No.253/1998 and RFA(OS) No.4/1999 have been preferred against a common judgment dated 17th July, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Probate Petition No.32/1984 filed by the deceased appellant seeking probate of the Will dated February 21, 1983 and the codicil dated November 11, 1983 executed by late Faqir Chand Vadhera and allowing CS(OS) No.1239/1985 filed by the respondents; granting a decree for rendition of accounts as also a decree for permanent injunction prayed for by the respondents against the deceased appellant.

5. Rendition of Accounts was sought for by the respondents pertaining to the business of “Tilak Hosiery” conducted from Shop No.2-B Connaught Place, New Delhi on the plea that their late father Faqir Chand Vadhera was the sole proprietor of the business and that the deceased appellant was an employee and had usurped the business. The decree for permanent injunction pertained to the possession of the shop, which was admittedly under the tenancy of late Sh.Faqir Chand Vadhera. As per the probate petition filed by the deceased appellant, late Sh.Faqir Chand Vadhera and he were the two partners carrying on business under the name and style “Tilak Hosiery” and that under the Will and the codicil late Sh.Faqir Chand Vadhera had bequeathed the tenancy rights to him and had also bequeathed the annexe portion of a building popularly known as “Tilak Building”, Satdhara Road, Dalhousie, Himachal Pradesh. Under the Will, the interest of Faqir Chand Vadhera in the partnership also stands bequeathed to the deceased appellant.

6. Thus, it is apparent that if the probate petition succeeds, the suit filed by the respondents has to be dismissed.

7. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Probate Petition on the ground that the two attesting witnesses to the Will who were also the attesting witnesses to the deed of partnership, examined as PW-2 and PW-3, were not trustworthy as their testimony did not inspire confidence on the various counts listed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned decision, which we shall be noting soon hereinafter.

8. A brief resume of the relevant facts at the outset would help a reader of this decision to understand the controversy and the relevant facts to be identified to settle the same.

9. The undisputed fact is that late Faqir Chand Vadhera was blessed with three sons who had migrated to the United States of America in the 1960s and the youngest son died a bachelor. Late Sh.Faqir Chand Vadhera”s wife predeceased him and thus he was living alone in Delhi carrying on business as the sole proprietor of “Tilak Hosiery”. The deceased appellant had his roots in the same village as that of Faqir Chand Vadhera, and in India one would say that the deceased appellant is the brother of Faqir Chand Vadhera because it is common practice to treat boys of one”s age in a village as brothers. Due to old age and failing health, Faqir Chand Vadhera requested the deceased appellant to shift to Delhi and reside with him in the same house and help him in carrying on the business of “Tilak Hosiery”.

10. The disputed facts are that as per the deceased appellant, after a while, Faqir Chand Vadhera converted the business into a partnership and made the deceased appellant a partner. Faqir Chand Vadhera owned properties in Dalhousie Himachal Pradesh. As per the deceased appellant, since he had served Faqir Chand Vadhera in his old age, out of love and affection, while executing the Will and the codicil in question, the business and the tenancy rights from th