The central legal point established in the judgment is that the requirements for a valid will, as outlined in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, must be met, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will must be dispelled to establish its validity.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 rendered by the Addl. District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal (RBT) No. 123/2000/97.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a suit against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) for declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of the land measuring 15 kanals 10 marlas out of the land measuring 61 kanals 17 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the basis of “will” executed by Darshan Lal on 5.4.1984 and the defendants have no right, title and interest of any kind in the suit land and the alleged mutation dated 25.6.1988 in favour of the defendants was wrong, incorrect and contrary to law. Consequential relief was also sought restraining the defendants to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also restraining them from taking possession of the suit land. Darshan Lal (deceased) was married to defendant No.1 Kamlesh Devi on 22.6.1983. Defendant No.1 used to live with her parents. On 4.4.1984 due to some heated arguments between deceased Darshan Lal and defendant No.1, Darshan Lal consumed poison. The parents of Darshan Lal tried their best to save his life. However, Darshan Lal died on 5.4.1984. He executed valid “will” regarding his estate in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.1 gave birth to defendant No.2, namely, Parmila Devi.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. According to them, Darshan Lal had differences with his parents also. He was not admitted in civil hospital. Darshan Lal became unconscious and remained as such till his death.

4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement. Issues were framed by the Sub Judge, Una on 9.11.1989. He decreed the suit on 31.1.1997. Defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Una. He allowed the same on 31.10.2003. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. When the defendant-respondent did not challenge the “will” on any specific ground except that the executant died after consuming poison, could the lower appellate court on its own assume suspicious circumstances enumerated in the impugned judgment and decree and proceed to determine the same in holding the “will” Ex.P-1 to be a sham document, shrouded by suspicious circumstances?

2. Whether the lower appellate court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in not taking into consideration the pronouncements of this Hon’ble Court as well as the apex court to be considered while determining the due execution and the validity of the will, Ex.P-1? Are not the findings of the lower appellate court illegal, erroneous and perverse being a result of misreading the material evidence and wrong appreciation of the correct law?

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is a result of misreading of oral and documentary evidence and rendering illegal, erroneous and perverse findings by assuming and presuming the facts extraneous to record?

5. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the first appellate court has come to a wrong conclusion that the “will” dated 5.4.1984 was shrouded with mystery. According to him, “will” was valid. He has lastly contended that the first appellate court has misread and mis-appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence.

6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

8. Since all substantial questions of law are in