The present appeal is directed against the judgement and decree, dated 9-12-1994, of the learned District Judge, whereby decree of the trial Court, decreeing the suit filed by late Smt. Madhuri, now represented by her Legal Representatives, appellants herein, has been set aside and the suit dismissed.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal may be noticed. Late Smt. Madhuri was the wife of one Shri Dhania. Dhania owned certain landed property, situated in two different villages of Theog Tehsil. Madhuri filed a suit in January, 1988 alleging that Dhania had died about 3-4 months back and on his death she had inherited the suit property, being his sole legal heir. She stated that they did not have any issue. It was alleged that the defendants, without any right, title or interest in the suit property, threatened to interfere in her possession and also attempted to forcibly oust her from the house of Dhania. Therefore, she filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents defendants from causing any interference in her possession over the suit property, including the house of late Shri Dhania.

3. Defendants respondents contested the suit and claimed that Dhania had executed a Will in their favour on 16-4-1984 and got the same registered with the Sub-Registrar and that on the strength of that Will they were the owners of the entire property of Dhania. They alleged that Dhania was their fathers real brother and that they had been maintaining him as also his wife plaintiff Madhuri as they did not have any issue of their own and that pleased with their services Dhania executed a Will in their favour. It was also alleged that plaintiff Madhuri was earlier married to one Balia from whose loins she had a daughter and that after the death of Balia, plaintiff Madhuri and the said daughter inherited his (Balias) estate. Plaintiff, in her replication, denied the execution of Will and further alleged that if the defendants succeeded in proving that there was any Will of Dhania then the same was the result of fraud and misrepresentation of facts practiced upon Dhania by the defendants. It was alleged that Dhania had been sick for quite long a time and had lost his senses some 7-8 years prior to his death and did not understand what was good or bad for him.

4. Learned trial Court framed the following issues, on the pleadings of the parties: (1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction as alleged? OPP (3) Whether deceased Dhania has executed a valid Will in favour of the defendants. If so its effect? OPD (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? OPD (5) Relief.

5. On the conclusion of trial, the trial Court held that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property, she having inherited the same, being the widow of deceased Dhania, and that the execution of the Will set up by the defendants was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and it could not be said to have been validly executed. Consequently, the suit was decreed.

6. Defendants-respondents appealed against the decree of the trial Court to the Court of District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the Will set-up by the defendants was validly executed and was a genuine one and consequently dismissed the suit of the appellant plaintiff.

7. Grievance of the plaintiff appellants is two-fold. First, that the learned District Judge has reversed the well reasoned finding of the trial Court without making even a reference to the reasoning given by the trial Court, leave alone recording sound reasons for dispelling the same and, secondly, the first Appellate Court has simply referred to the testimony of the witnesses examined by the defendants and then passed the impugned decree.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel representing the appellants has d