R.L. Khurana, J: The appellants, who were the defendants No. 1 to 3 and 6 before the learned trial Court, have preferred the present second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11:9.1997 of the learned District Judge, Solan, passed in C.A. No. 23-S/13 of 1996 modifying the judgment and decree dated 27.8.1996 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan, in Civil Suit No. 207/1 of 1991.

2. Respondent No. 1 before this court was the plaintiff while respondents 2 and 3 were the defendants No. 4 and 5 respectively before the learned trial Court. The parties are hereinafter being referred to accordingly.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case may be thus stated. One Balak Ram son of Mohar Singh owned property in village Jabal Jamrot, Pargana Haripur, Tehsil and District Solan. He died on 31.10.1987. After his death his estate came to be mutated in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, his grand sons, on the basis of a will dated 4.12.1978 alleged to have been executed in their favour by the deceased Balak Ram, on 20.2.1988 vide mutation No. 1313.

4. The plaintiff by claiming himself to be a son of the deceased Balak Ram, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that mutation No. 1313 dated 20.2.1988 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is wrong, illegal, null and void and that the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 being the sons, and defendants No. 5 and 6 being the daughters of the deceased Balak Ram are the joint owners and in possession of the estate of the deceased Balak Ram in equal shares and that the alleged will dated 4.12.1978 (wrongly described in the plaint as dated 23.12.1987) as null and void, in operative and beyond the competency of the deceased Balak Ram, and even otherwise being the result of fraud, misrepresentation etc., and the same has no effect whatsoever on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff.

5. Accordingly to the plaintiff the estate was inherited by the deceased Balak Ram from his father Shri Mohar Singh and as such the same was ancestral in his hands. The deceased Balak Ram a Hindu and having joint a Hindu Family consisting of himself, the plaintiff and the defendants. He was governed by Hindu Law and custom in the matters of alienation and succession whereby he could not bequeathed the ancestral property by way of will. It was further pleaded that no will was executed by the deceased Balak Ram during his life time. The will, if any, is forged and fabricated and consequently the mutation of inheritance sanctioned on 20.2.1988 is illegal, null and void.

6. The defendants while resisting the suit admitted that the deceased had inherited the property from his father Mohar Singh, They, however, denied that such property was ancestral joint Hindu Family property in the hands of the deceased. They also denied that the deceased was governed by custom in the matters of alienation and succession. They pleaded that the deceased Balak Ram during his life time in a sound disposing mind on 4.12.1978 had executed a valid will in favour of defendants NO. 1 and 2 which came to be registered in the office of the Sub Registrar on 23,12.1987 after the death of the deceased Balak Ram. It was further pleaded that Smt. Durgi wife of the deceased Balak Ram had deserted her husband during his life time while he was in service at Chandigarh. She developed illicit relations with one Mehar Singh plaintiff and defendant No. 4 were born to Smt. Durgi from the lions of the said Mehar Singh. The defendant, therefore, denied the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 to the sons of deceased Balak Ram.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

1. Whether the mutation No. 1313 dated 20.2.88 is illegal, null and void and not operative against the plaintiff as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 and 6 are joint owners in possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP

3. Whether there is a validly executed will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 as alleged ?

4. Whethe