The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of conflicting wills and the significance of registered wills under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan on 23.3.2002 in Civil Appeal No.51-S/13 of 2001.

2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) instituted a suit for declaration and injunction that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the appellants/defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for convenience sake) had no right, title and interest over the same in any manner whatsoever, consequently defendants be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner whatsoever. According to the plaintiff, Tara Chand alias Taru was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No.89, Khatauni No.104, Khasra Kitas 5, measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas situate in Mauza Kulhariwala, Pargana Doon, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan. He died on 31.1.1996 leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole legal heir. According to him, Shri Tara Chand has adopted him as his son as per the custom prevailing in the area. He has been serving Shri Tara Chand. It is further averred by him that Shri Tara Chand had executed a Will in his favour out of love and affection. He has informed the Halqua Patwari about the factum of death of Tara Chand and requested him to enter a mutation of inheritance in his favour. However, the Halqua Patwari has entered the mutation in favour of the defendants. According to him, Shri Tara Chand had not executed subsequent Will dated 28.1.1996, Ex.DW-2/A in favour of defendant, Hans Raj.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, though the Will dated 20.4.1990 was executed, however, the same was revoked by execution of the subsequent Will dated 28.1.1996. According to them, the plaintiff has never approached the revenue authorities regarding the Will in his favour as he knew the fact of revocation of the Will executed in his favour by execution of a new Will dated 28.1.1996 in favour of defendants.

4. The trial Court framed the issues on 18.5.1998. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 31.7.2001. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. He partly allowed and partly dismissed the appeal on 23.3.2002. He held that Tara Chand had executed a valid and legal Will in favour of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW-2/A. He declared that the plaintiff was legally entitled to inherit the suit land on the basis of Will Ex.PW-2/A. He held the Will Ex.DW-2/A dated 28.1.1996 to be illegal and void. He also held that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land, he was entitled for the relief of possession of the suit land. Consequently, decree for possession of the suit land was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

5. This regular second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2002. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 8.7.2002:- 1. Whether there can be a presumption that the will is surrounded by a suspicious circumstance merely on account of the fact that the testator has died a few days after the execution of the will? 2. Whether once the signatures of the testator on the will are proved and the witnesses and scribe prove the will in accordance with law, there can be any suspicious circumstance with regard to the will? 3. Whether there can be a properly constituted plaint without the signatures of the plaintiff? 4. Whether a plaint signed by some other person can form the basis of a suit especially when there is nothing on record to show that said person was duly authorised attorney of the plaintiff? 5. Whether there has been total misreading and misinterpretation of the oral and documentary evidence in the present case which has led to a totally incorrect judgment?

6. Mr. Raman Sethi, learned coun