The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 63 and Section 68, to determine the validity of a Will and the mental state of the testator.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Kullu, H.P. dated 9.8.2011, passed in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2011.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff Ram Dei and respondent Prema Dei, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that Lal Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had died intestate leaving behind the parties to the lis as his legal heirs and after the death of Lal Singh, the plaintiffs are joint owners-inin possession of the suit land to the extent of 2/3 share, i.e. 1/3 share each and the revenue entries showing the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) as owner-in-possession of the suit land vide mutation No. 6838 of Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, on the basis of the forged and fictitious registered Will No. 194 dated 17.5.1996 are wrong, illegal and contrary to the factual position. The consequential relief of permanent perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the peaceful and joint ownership of the plaintiffs to the extent of 2/3 share over the suit land and from encumbering or changing the nature of the suit land in any manner, whatsoever and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land was also prayed for. Lal Singh died intestate on 15.1.2007 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant as his daughters. Twelve years prior to his death Lal Singh was suffering from Blood Pressure and Paralysis. Lal Singh had firstly suffered a mild attack of paralysis in the year 1994 and thus he was not in a sound disposing state of mind. There was no question of executing the Will as Lal Singh loved his all the daughters equally and they were looking after his agricultural land. After the death of Lal Singh, the defendant started threatening the plaintiffs to oust and dispossess them from the suit land. When the plaintiffs were busy in performance of the last rites of deceased Lal Singh, defendant in connivance with the revenue officials got mutation No. 6838 attested on the basis of some procured, false and fabricated Will dated 17.5.1996.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant Lal Singh, father of plaintiffs and defendant died on 14.1.2007. He denied that he died intestate. Lal Singh before his death was sick and defendant rendered services to him and had also borne the expenses of his treatment. Lal Singh had executed his last and final Will dated 17.5.1996 DW-2/A, whereby he bequeathed his property situated in Phati Shamshi, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu in the manner that 1-10-00 bighas in favour of plaintiff No. 2 Prema Dei and 1-00-00 bighas in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Ram Dei and rest of the land was bequeathed by him in favour of Chinta Mani, defendant.

4. The replication was filed. The learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Lahaul and Spiti at Kullu, framed the issues on 11.6.2007. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.1.2011. The plaintiff Ram Dei, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.1.2011. The learned Addl. District Judge (FTC, Kullu, dismissed the same on 9.8.2011. Hence, this regular second appeal.

5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law on 22.3.2012:

“1. Whether the learned Court below can reach to a finding regarding the validity of the will merely on the basis of the oral evidences of given by the DW-1?

2. Whether the learned Court below is right in holding the alleged will as valid, by ignoring the evidence on record which shows that the defendant is involved in the execution of the will and other suspicious circumstances as is pointed out by the appellant/plaintiff in the execution of alleged will?

3. Whether the learned court below can reach to the finding regarding the state of the mind of the testator and dismisses the appeal of