Mahesh Grover, J.:-This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 20.4.2001 and the first Appellate Court dated 28.5.2004.

2. Gokal Chand son of Nihal Chand died leaving behind 8 sons and 2 daughters. The appellant claimed that he had succeeded to the entire estate of Gokal Chand on the basis of Will which was questioned by the plaintiffs/respondents by filing a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs No.1 to 6 were owners in possession of 66/90 share in equal shares, plaintiff No.7 was owner in possession of 1/90 share, plaintiffs No.8 to 15 were owners in possession of 11/90 shares in equal shares, defendant No.1 was owner in possession of 11/90 shares, whereas defendant No.3 was owner in possession of 1/90 shares in the land measuring 34 kanals 16 marlas comprised in Khewat No.284/272, Khatoni No.399, Khasra and Kills Nos.126//16 (3-16), 127//11/2(7-0), 12(8-0), 19(8-0), 20(8-0), situated at Moja Kirawar, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani, vide jamanandi for the year 1989-90.

3. The appellant pleaded that he was looking after his father who was staying with him in the last days of his life and as a recognition of his love and affection and care the entire property was bequeathed to him by virtue of Will dated 10.2.1978. Gokal Chand is said to have died on 1.1.1994. The mutation regarding the property on the basis of Will was sanctioned on 24.1.1994. The suit was filed in February 1994. Initially, the plaintiffs/respondents pleaded that the suit land was ancestral and could not have been willed away but during the course of proceedings before the learned trial Court they conceded that the property was self acquired and could have been alienated by Will, but seriously questioned the execution of the Will. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners-in-possession of the property to the extent in the share detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the Will dated 10.2.1978 was validly and duly executed?OPD

2.A Whether the property in dispute is ancestral in the hands of Gokal Chand, since deceased, if so its effect ?OPP

3. If the above issues are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for ?OPD

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit ?OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties? OPD

8. Whether the suit is nullity as alleged in Para No.6 of the preliminary objections? OPD

9. Relief.

4. Upon appraisal of the evidence before it, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and did not disclose any reason why the other natural successors were excluded from succession.

5. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court also concluded as above.

6. In the instant appeal learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously urged that mere exclusion of the other natural successors does not imply that the Will necessarily is a result of collusion and fraud. It was further contended that there is overwhelming evidence on record to suggest that deceased Gokul Chand was residing with him which fact is also strengthened from the fact that the plaintiffs/respondents in their testimony have admitted the possession of the appellant on the suit land. It was contended that he could have entered the possession of the suit property only if the deceased had willed it that way.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No.2,3 and 4, on the other hand, contended that the Will was surrounded by a number of circumstances which raised a suspicion and there was no reason to exclude the other natural heirs from the succession and that even the contents of the Will have not been proved in accordance w