i) Bonafide Purchaser - Deletion of names in the enteries of mutation; was sufficient for vendees to become alert and to verify the factual position before purchasing the land.
ii) Will-There is nothing like oral will in law.

, J.

1. Balbir Singh was the owner of the suit land. He died on 12.9.1985. He left behind his widow Swaraj Rani (respondent No.5) and his daughter Parveen Kumari. His inheritance was, however, sanctioned in favour of Swaraj Rani on the basis of oral Will dated 8.7.1985 on 16.11.1985. Parveen Kumari who was married to Yog Raj (respondent No.2) also died on 18.12.1985 leaving behind her son Deepak Gosain (respondent No.1) and her husband Yog Raj. Said Yog Raj re-married in 1986. Swaraj Rani sold the entire property of Balbir Singh in favour of the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1990. The said sale deed was challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the legal heirs of Parveen Kumari with the allegations that Parveen Kumari had inherited half share in the estate left by her father Balbir Singh while Swaraj Rani being the widow of Balbir Singh inherited half share. Therefore, Swaraj Rani had no right to alienate the entire land of Balbir Singh in favour of the appellants.

2. The said suit was contested by the present appellants by filing written statement. Legal objections were also pleaded. Even Swaraj Rani had taken the plea that Deepak Gosain was not the son of Parveen Kumari from her wedlock with Yog Raj. It was further pleaded that Yog Raj had re-married 2 or 3 months after the death of Parveen Kumari. Therefore, it was denied if respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the legal heirs of Parveen Kumari. It was further pleaded that her husband Balbir Singh had bequeathed the property in her favour and mutation was also sanctioned in her favour alone. Therefore, Parveen Kumari had not inherited any share in the estate left by Balbir Singh. Mutation was not challenged by the appellants for a long time nor it was challenged by Parveen Kumari during her life time.

3. The appellants also filed written statement and contested the suit. Legality and maintainability of the suit was disputed. It was pleaded that they have purchased the suit land from Swaraj Rani vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.1990 for a sum of Rs.9,03,750/-. They were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. Issues were framed. The parties led the evidence.

4. The learned trial Court reached the conclusion that Deepak Gosain (respondent No.1) was born on 21.4.1983 from the wedlock of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj respondent. It was also held that Swaraj Rani had failed to prove any Will in her favour by her husband Balbir Singh and it was dis-believed. Deepak Gosain was held entitled to the joint possession of the land to the extent of half share. The sale deed in favour of the appellants to that extent was held invalid and not binding on respondent No.1. Accordingly, the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2000.

5. The appellants filed an appeal in the learned Lower Appellate Court. Swaraj Rani also filed an appeal. Both these appeals were decided by the learned Lower Appellate Court by common judgment. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned Lower Appellate Court. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2001.

6. Hence, the present appeal.

7. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that even Deepak Gosain was not the son of Parveen Kumari. This submission has, however, no force. Deepak Gosain has produced his middle standard school certificate which reveals that he has passed middle standard examination in the year 1998. In the said certificate, his date of birth was stated to be 21.4.1983. The marriage of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj was subsisting at that time while Parveen Kumari died in December, 1985. The school certificate is the most reliable document and, therefore, believing the same to be true, the only presumption is that Deepak Gosain, respondent No.1 is the son born from the wedlock of Parveen Kumari with Yog Raj respondent. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts b