1. Defendants appeal was admitted on the following two questions of law : "1. Whether will dated 8/6/1983 is executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act ?

2. Whether the interpretations and inferences drawn from the statements Exhibit D. B., statement of PW 1 Sh. Hans Raj and other evidence on record by the District Judge are correct for holding that will dated 8 / 6/ 1983 is a valid will whereas the will dated 19-6-1983 is shrouded in suspicious circumstances ?"

2. The suit of the plaintiffs-respondents for grant of a decree for declaration as regards their title to part of the estate of one Saudagar, on the basis of Will Ex. PB dated 8th June, 1983 was dismissed upholding the legality and validity of another Will Ex. DA bequeathing the entire property by deceased Saudagar in favour of his daughter Punni, defendant-appellant. The lower appellate Court allowed the plaintiffs appeal through the impugned judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1989 upholding the legality and validity of the Will Ex. PB (wrongly mentioned as Ex. PA) and discarding the Will Ex. DA dated 9th June, 1983. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. It is this judgment and decree which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Plaintiffs claimed a decree aforementioned alleging that Saudagar owned and possessed the suit properties situate in village Bhooppur in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur. Punni defendant was the only daughter of Saudagar. Wife of Saudagar had died about 30 years ago. There was none else to look after him, since he had already married off his daughter Punni to Partap Singh, who was settled in village Kedarpur. Plaintiffs father Hans Raj being the son-in-law of his brother was living with Saudagar. Plaintiffs father and the plaintiffs were looking after and maintaining Saudagar. Neither his daughter, nor her husband were taking any care of Saudagar and thus he (Saudagar) had developed great love and affection for the plaintiffs and their father, who did not leave any stone unturned in looking after and maintaining him so that he could lead a happy life.

4. It is also alleged that on 31st March, 1983, a Will had been executed by Saudagar bequeathing his property in favour of plaintiffs as well as defendant, which was cancelled by him executing another will Ex. P3 on 8th June, 1983, by which part of the property was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs, part in favour of his daughter Punni and part in favour of other two defendants, namely, Inder Singh and Sunder Singh. This Will was got registered with Sub Registrar Paonta Sahib. After the execution of the Will, the beneficiaries were put in possession on the different parcels of land and thus the plaintiffs and defendants were holding and occupying the properties separately. Saudagar is stated to have died on 16th August, 1983, after remaining ill for about more than two months. During the last stage of his life, he was not in a position to move about. After the death of Saudagar, plaintiffs came to know that defendant, in collusion with some other persons had forged a document purporting to be a Will executed by the deceased and on that basis she was claiming an exclusive title to the entire property and denying the title of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants. It was alleged that the Will Ex. PB dated 8th June, 1983 was the last valid Will executed by the deceased and thus title was claimed on that basis by the plaintiffs. The suit was instituted on 26th December, 1984.

5. Defendant Punni contested the suit. It was denied that it the plaintiffs or their father had been looking after or maintaining the deceased. It is also denied that neither she, nor her husband looked after or maintained Saudagar. Though she admitted that she had been residing at Kedarpur but stated that she had also been visiting her father. It is alleged by her that there was no occasion for her father to have executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs or the other two defendants