Attestation of Will - It is the duty of the Registering officer to see that proper persons are present, competent to act and identified to his satisfaction.

, J.

1. A dis - satisfied plaintiff - appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal assailing the judgments and decrees dated 16.10.1996 and 9.11.1998 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri (hereinafter described as `the trial Court) and Additional District Judge, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as `the lower Appellate Court), respectively. A suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was instituted by the appellant broadly on the averments that he and the respondents were descendants from a common ancestor, namely, Jeewana, who had five sons, i. e. , Chauhal, Lakhu, Nawaja, Kabaj and Malji. All the five have since expired. Chhaju (respondent No.3, who has since expired and is now represented by his legal representatives) is the son of Chauhal, whereas the appellant is the son of Surta son of Lakhu. Nawaja died leaving behind son - Suba. Smt. Multani (respondent No.2) is the daughter of Nawaja and sister of said Suba. Kabaj left behind son - Rulia (respondent No.4 ).

2. In question is the estate of Suba. According to the appellant, he and the respondents are Gujjars by caste and the main source of their livelihood is agriculture and they are governed by customary law prevailing in the States of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of alienation of the ancestral property. It was averred that the suit land is ancestral and the estate of Suba, who died on 16.11.1988 intestate leaving behind no issue, was liable to be succeeded by the appellant and respondent Nos.2 to 4 being his only legal heirs. However, respondent No.4 with an ulterior motive forged a Will allegedly having been executed by Suba in favour of respondent No.1 - Deep Kumar, ( minor son of respondent No.4) and laid a claim to the entire estate of deceased - Suba. It was alleged that Suba had not executed the alleged Will out of his own free volition being of unsound mind and a fraud was played upon him.

3. In their written statement, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 admitted the factum of the parties being Gujjars by caste, but rest of the averments made by the appellant were denied. It was contended that Suba, out of love and affection and with his free will, executed a valid registered Will in favour of respondent No.1. It was on the basis of this Will that respondent no.1 had succeeded to the share of Suba. It was further contended that all the co - sharers are in separate possession of their shares of the suit property for the last 50 years and that the appellant is not in possession of any portion thereof.

4. Respondent No.3 - Chhaju (since deceased) filed a separate written statement supporting the case of the appellant. Broadly on the above averments, the suit proceeded and the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the will dated 26.9.94 and mutation Nos.161 and 108 recorded on the basis of will executed by the deceased Suba in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, ineffective, non - existent, non est, fraudulent, inoperative and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and baseless, if so its effect? OPD

6. Relief.5. After perusing the evidence on record, the trial Court proceeded to decide issue Nos.1 and 2 together and held that the Will in question was a valid Will and that the custom as pleaded by the appellant had not been proved and that the appellant had no locus standi to file the suit. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.6. In appeal filed by the appellant, the lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. This has given rise to the present Regular Second Appeal having been filed by the appellant. Mrs. Anju Arora, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that there were specific pleadings to the e