The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of validity of a registered Will, the onus of proof to rebut the presumption, and the cautious approach required in dealing with evidence of Will execution.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) came to be dismissed.

2. The facts, in brief, necessitating the filing of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 02.02.1996 executed by Ram Nath in favour of the defendants was illegal, bogus, fictitious and forged one and was liable to be set-aside. He further sought declaration to the effect that mutation No. 6408 dated 23.02.2009 which was attested on the basis of the Will was liable to be declared as illegal and wrong and not binding upon the plaintiff.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who in their written statement raised preliminary objections of estoppel, maintainability, valuation, cause of action and on merits, they claimed their right on the basis of the Will executed by Ram Nath in their favour, who according to them, had executed the Will out of his free volition and in a sound disposing mind and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. On 31.05.2011, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property, as alleged? OPP

2. Whether mutation No. 6408 attested on 23.02.2009 is illegal, void and inoperative, as alleged? OPP

3. Whether Ram Nath deceased executed Will dated 02.02.1996 in favour of defendants, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not competent and maintainable, as alleged? OPD.

5. Relief.

5. After recording the evidence led by the parties and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred against such judgment and decree also came to be dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide his judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015. It is against these concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as also the law on the subject has been totally ignored and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below ought to be set-aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously.

6. It is the admitted case of the parties that late Sh. Ram Nath, was the father of both the contesting parties and was married to one Uma Vati, and they had two sons and four daughters. The defendants No. 1 to 5 are the other son and four daughters of Ram Nath, who have set up the Will in question.

7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1, tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, PW-2 Nihal Singh Thakur and also tendered/proved copies of jamabandis Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/D, copy of mutation Ex.PW-1/E, site plan Ex.PW-2/A and location plan Ex.PW-2/B and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW-1 Rajesh Kumar, defendant No.1 who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A, DW-2 Sh. Hari Chand, Advocate who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-2/A, DW-3 Bhuvneshwar Dutt, who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-3/A and also tendered/proved voter lists Ex.DW-1/B and Ex.DW-1/C, Will dated 2.2.1996 Ex.DW-2/B and closed their evidence.

8. It is not in dispute but is rather admitted case of the parties that late Sh. Ram Nath was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, who died on 25.12.2008 and on his demise mutation No. 6408 was sanctioned on 23.2.2009 on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by him on 02.02.1996.

9. Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether Sh. Ram Nath in fact executed a registered Will Ex.DW-2/B and while he was