The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove the execution of a Will and the absence of suspicious circumstances, as well as the consideration of all material circumstances and facts of the case in determining the genuineness of a Will.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1982 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the land in question was decreed, whereas the same was dismissed by the trial Court.

2. In this appeal, the controversy is about the land measuring 9 Kanals 15 Marlas, which was owned by one Munshi Ram. The instant suit for possession was filed by his two daughters, namely, Smt. Shakuntla and Smt. Satya Devi against defendant No. 1-Gurdev Singh (appellant herein), who is their cousin, on the basis of the title by alleging that their father was the owner in possession of the land in question and after his death on 3.9.1978, they inherited the land in question. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 got sanctioned the mutation in his favour regarding the land in question on the basis of the Will, though no such Will was ever executed by their father, and if there was any such Will, the same was the result of fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, they are entitled for possession of the land in question which was illegally taken by the defendant-Gurdev Singh. In the suit, two other persons namely, Ajit Ram and Ganga Ram, were impleaded as defendant Nos. 2 and 3, who were merely co-sharers in the joint khata, though no relief was sought against them. Therefore, the suit was only contested by defendant No. 1 - appellant Gurdev Singh and the other two defendants did not appear and contest the suit.

3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit by alleging that Munshi Ram was his uncle. He was son of the brother of grand father of the defendant-appellant. The wife of Munshi Ram expired long back and after the marriage of his two daughters (Respondents herein), he was living alone as he was having no male issue. He was being looked after by the defendant-appellant and his father till he died in the year 1978. In lieu of service rendered by them to Munshi Ram, he executed a registered Will in favour of defendant-Gurdev Singh on 24.3.1969 regarding his property which was the only land in question measuring 9 Kanals 15 Marlas. After the death of Munshi Ram, the mutation of the land in question was sanctioned in favour of the defendant-Gurdev Singh on the basis of the aforesaid Will. It was also alleged that after the death of Munshi Ram, his last rites were performed by the father of the defendant-Gurdev Singh and other customary ceremonies were also performed, by him and his father. It was specifically pleaded that after the marriage of the plaintiffs and during the life time of Munshi Ram, both the plaintiffs never visited Munshi Ram to look after him. As such, he prayed for the dismissed of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether deceased Munshi Ram executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant No. 1?OPD

2. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

3. Relief.

5. On issue No. 1, which is the only material issue in this case, it was held by the trial Court that the defendant-appellant has duly proved the execution of the Will dated 24.3.1969 (Ex.D-20) by examining the scribe of the Will, namely, Dharam Pal and its attesting witnesses, namely Pritam Singh, Lambardar of the village (DW-4) and Chamba Ram (DW-5). It was further found that the aforesaid Will dated 24.3.1969 was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances and it was the most genuine Will, though the daughters were excluded by the testator from the inheritance of the land in question. The trial Court recorded certain findings of facts, on the basis of which, the aforesaid conclusion was made. After recording these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents.

6. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned first Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of