A proponent of a Will must dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution; mere assertion is insufficient to establish validity.

Virender Singh, J.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated 7.12.2005, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No. 90-D/03, titled as, ‘Pushpinder Kumar & others versus Prem Chand & others.’

2. Vide judgment and decree, dated 7.12.2005, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, against the judgment and decree, dated 28.5.2003 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (I), Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), in Civil Suit No. 112 of 1995, titled as, ‘Pushpinder Kumar & others versus Prem Chand and others’, whereby, the learned trial Court has dismissed the above titled suit.

3. As stated above, the aforesaid appeal was filed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.5.2003, passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 112 of 1995. The learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit, has observed as follows:

“ 28. Net result of all the discussions made above and the conclusions arrived at supra is that the instant suit being meritless, not maintainable and time barred fails. It is, therefore, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree

4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:

The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of land comprised in Khata 161, Khatauni 426 Khasra Nos. 913, 915, kita 2 area 0- 01-07 Hects; to the extent of ½ share, land measuring 0-03-09 Hects; in Khata 162, Khatauni 327, Khasra Nos. 914, 916, 1030 kita 3 area 0-06- 19 Hects; in Khata 176, khatauni 451, Khasra No. 912, 943, land measuring 2-03-43 Hects; to the extent of ½ share measuring 0-01-17 Hects; in khata 177, Khatauni 452 to 454, Khasra Nos. 1016, 1013 and 1015, land measuring 0-02-33 Hects; to the extent of 2160/51840 share in Khata 187, Khatauni 468 to 470, Khasra No. 958, 987, 1019, 1029, 1063, 1121, 1001, 1011, 1000 Kita 9 land measuring 0-11-09 Hects; to the extent of 840/15120 share in khata 189, khatauni 472 to 479 khasra kita 25 area 1-20-49 Hects and in Khana Kasht, land measuring 0-04-00 Hects entered in Khata 46, Khatauni 148, Khasra No. 1065 of Muhaal Maira Moza Garli Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, as per Jamabandi 1989-90 and in Khata 158 Khatauni 308 Khasra No. 518, 535, 536 area 0- 39-42 Hects; (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) situated in Muhal Kuhna Moza Kaloha, Tehsil Dehra District Kangra, as per Jamabandi for the year 1987-88, on the basis of Will dated 6.7.1991, executed by Shri Khemdu, during his life time, in favour of plaintiffs in equal shares. They have also sought the declaration that Mutation No. 177, dated 22.11.1991, sanctioned in the absence of plaintiffs and their father, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and 7 is illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs to succeed to the property of Khemdu Ram.

4.1 The plaintiffs have challenged the subsequent transfer dated 9.3.1992 by defendants No. 2 and 3, in favour of defendants No. 5 and 6, which is stated to be without consideration and having no effect on the rights of plaintiffs to succeed the suit land, and the same is stated to be void-ab- initio. The plaintiffs have also sought injunction, restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit land, in any manner.

4.2 In the alternative, the plaintiffs have also