Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.

1. This is defendants second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent for declaration to the effect that she is the co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share of the share of Smt.Ishar Kaur d/o Hira Singh in the land as detailed in the headnote of the plaint and mutation No. 952 regarding the inheritance of deceased Ishar Kaur sanctioned in the name of defendant is null and void and for joint possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit land to anybody else, has been decreed.

2. As per the averments made in the suit, originally Ishar Kaur d/o Hira Singh r/o village Bhinder, Tehsil Baba Bakala, was owner of the suit land. Ishar Kaur was married at village Cheemabath with Inder Singh. Out of that wedlock the plaintiff and the defendants were born and they are the legal heirs of Ishar Kaur. In her last days of life Ishar Kaur and the defendants were not in good terms with the plaintiff. She used to live with the plaintiff at village Bhinder and died there. She also performed her last ceremonies. It was averred that Ishar Kaur died intestate and plaintiff became co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share in her property. It was further stated that defendants are alleging that Ishar Kaur had executed a Will in their favour. The alleged Will is forged. It was further pleaded that the revenue authorities wrongly sanctioned mutation No. 952 regarding the inheritance of Ishar Kaur on the basis of the alleged Will. The plaintiff is not bound by the order of the mutation. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff requested the defendants not to alienate the land and to admit the claim of the plaintiff but the defendants did not pay any heed to her request. Hence this suit.

3. Upon notice the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement alleging that Ishar Kaur executed a valid Will dated 12.10.1993 in their favour and mutation regarding the inheritance of Ishar Kaur was legally sanctioned by revenue authorities in their favour. The other averments in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

4. On considering the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Will dated 12.10.1993 relied upon by the defendants was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the defendants have failed to remove those suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the Will cannot be accepted and therefore by way of natural succession plaintiff has become co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share of the land in dispute and thus, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

5. Appeal filed by the defendants against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.02.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:

"In this back drop, the appellants/defendants failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances and the will in question appears to be unnatural dis position and in this view of the matter the trial Court has rightly excluded the will in question and held the respondent/plaintiff to be entitled to the share in the property on the basis of natural inheritance of Ishar Kaur. From the evidence, brought on record, it stands amply established that Ishar Kaur has 1/4th share in the suit property and after her death respondent/plaintiff together with her brothers i.e. appellants/defendants inherited the property of their mother. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly held the respondent/plaintiff to be the owner/co-sharer to the extent of share and relief of injunction has rightly been granted to the respondent/plaintiff. Thus the findings on issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are hereby affirmed."

6. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemen