(Surjit Singh, J.) - Two cases, particulars whereof are given hereinabove, are being disposed of by this common judgment, as common questions of law and facts, based upon identical factual matrix, are involved. Controversy raised in both the cases pertains to a Will Ex.DW-2/A, allegedly executed by Jamna in favour of Mansa Ram (now deceased and represented by his LRs) Munshi Ram and Nek Ram (hereinafter called defendants).

2. Shankroo, respondent in both the appeals and her mother Sartaju, (now dead and represented by Shankroo, respondent) filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the property, described in the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and that appellants-defendants, had no right, title or interest therein. By way of further relief, they prayed for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining appellants-defendants from causing interference in their possession. It was alleged that Attru, father of plaintiff Shankroo and husband of Sartaju, owned the suit land and some other land. On the death of Attru in the year 1960, his estate was inherited by Shankroo, being his daughter and Sartaju, the deceased plaintiff and one Smt. Jamna Sartaju and Jamna were the wives of Attru. Shankroo inherited half share, while Sartaju and Jamna together inherited half share equally. Jamna died in December, 1993 and on her death, plaintiff Shankroo and deceased Sartaju inherited the suit property, which she (Jamna) had inherited from her husband Attru, being one of his two wives. They claimed that this way, they were owners of the suit land. They also claimed that on the death of Jamna, they came in possession of the suit land and the possession was continuing with them. It was, stated that the defendants-appellants, without any right, title or interest, were threatening to dispossess them by use of force. Regular seen ad appeal arises out of this suit.

3. Stand taken by the appellants-defendants in their written statement was that Jamna, after the death of Attru in the year 1960, had married their father's brother Lachhu. It was stated that said Lachhu died in the year 1981. After Lachhu's death, they had been rendering services to Jamna, being Lachhu's nephews and pleased with their services, she executed a Will in their favour, in respect of her entire movable and immovable property on 21.10.1993. They claimed that Jamna had been living with them during her life time and on her death, they came in, possession of the suit land and thus, possession was with them. They claimed title to the suit land on the basis of Will.

4. Parties went to trial, on the conclusion of which, trial Court held that the plaintiffs were out of possession, Jamna had executed a valid will in favour of appellants-defendants and that Jamna had married Lachhu Ram, brother of father of the defendants, after the death of her first husband Attru. With these findings, suit was dismissed.

5. Appeal was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of District Judge. Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence were moved by both the sides during the pendency of the appeal. Those applications were allowed. Appellants, who were respondents in the appeal before the District Judge, examined one of them, namely Mansa Ram, who tendered in evidence copies of entries in revenue papers and stated that entries, showing respondents-plaintiffs in possession, were wrong Plaintiffs-respondents, who were appellants before the District Judge examined the left out marginal witness of the Will, namely RW-1 Sohan Lal, who stated that Will had been executed by Jamna in his presence and that affidavit EX. AW-1/A, in which it was declared that no Will had been executed in his presence and that his signatures on the Will was obtained later on at the residence of the scribe, had been furnished by him under pressure, exerted upon him by respondents/plaintiffs through a Baba, who was common guru of himself and plaintiff