Hemant Gupta, J.

1. Defendant No.l Bhim Sain is in the second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for possession and for recovery of Rs. 14,400/- as compensation for occupation of the shop in dispute, was decreed.

2. The brief facts out of which present appeal arises is that Ghansham Daos, father of the parties, was the owner of the property in dispute. The plaintiff claims that Smt. Rattan Devi, mother of the parties, was owner of the property in dispute after the death of her husband. She executed a registered Will on 21.07.1986. The plaintiff alleged that since he is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will of his mother, thus, the defendant No. 1 is in illegal possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession and also compensation for wrongful enjoyment of possession of the shop by the said defendant.

3. Defendant No.l in his written statement denied the execution of Will by Rattan Devi. It was asserted that Ghansham Dass, father of the parties, executed Will dated 23.06.1968 in favour of his four sons. After the death of Ghansham Dass, defendant No. 1 had become owner of t