IMPORTANT POINT
Will--Proof of execution--Mere proving the thumb impressions on the will is not sufficient to prove the execution of Will.
Will--Attesting witness--Scribe of the Will or the Registrar cannot be taken as attesting witnesses unless the scribe mentioned himself as attesting witnesses.
Suit on the basis of inheritance--There is no limitation for filing the suit.

K. C. Puri, J.:-Under challenge, in this appeal, is the judgment and decree dated 13.8.2004 passed by Shri J.S.Klar, the then Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby he accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 5.3.2004 delivered by Shri S.S.Panesar,the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amloh and resultantly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and possession against the defendants.

2. The necessary facts, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the decree and judgment in Civil Suit No.556 of 21.9.1994 titled Gurcharan Singh and others Versus Bhajan Singh, decided on 9.1.1995 by the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amloh in respect of property of Bhajan Singh mentioned at letters ABC&D in the head note of the plaint were wrong, without jurisdiction, illegal, null and void, ineffective and inoperative qua their proprietary rights as heirs of said Bhajan Singh and that they were the owners of the suit land and for possession of the suit land as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 situated within the revenue limits of village Siraj Majra, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib on the ground that Bhajan Singh son of Sohan Singh, resident of village Siraj Majra was the owner and in possession of land mentioned at letters ABCD. The defendants have no concern or connection with said Bhajan Singh, who were not related to Bhajan Singh, in any manner. On the basis of wrong allegations, the defendants in a secret and collusive manner filed Civil Suit No.556 of 21.9.1994 against Bhajan Singh and obtained judgment and decree regarding the suit land. The said judgment and decree were against facts, law, illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction, ineffective and inoperative qua their rights being owners as heirs of Bhajan Singh on the following grounds:-

(a) That there has never been any family settlement between defendants and said Bhajan Singh nor there was any relationship between them;

(b) That the judgment and decree were inadmissible being based upon mere admissions alleged to be of said Bhajan Singh and for want of registration and stamps and were a device to cheat the State of Punjab and the stamps and registration charges;

(c) That the judgment and decree in question conferred no right or title upon the defendants and could not be acted in the revenue records;

(d) That said Bhajan Singh had no knowledge of the contents of the plaint or written statement or of alleged statement, if any, made by him in the Court in the said suit and he was illiterate and

(e) That the suit was fraudulent and it was fraud upon the Court.

3. It is further averred that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land and refused to deliver back the possession to the plaintiffs and have also refused to admit the plaintiffs as owners of the suit land being heirs of Bhajan Singh, now deceased.

4. On notice, the defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. They admitted the contents of para No.1 of the plaint. They denied that the defendants had no concern with Bhajan Singh. Rather, Bhajan Singh was their uncle in relationship and belonged to the same family. It was also denied that they, in a secret or collusive manner, filed Civil Suit No.556 of 21.9.1994, decided on 9.1.1995. They averred that Bhajan Singh voluntarily suffered decree dated 9.1.1995 on his own free will on the basis of family settlement effected by Bhajan Singh on 15.6.1994 and relinquished his proprietary rights in their favour. They denied that the judgment and decree were either illegal, against law and facts, without jurisdiction, ineffective or inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. The judgment and decree dated 9.1.1995 were passed on the basis of family settlement dated 15.6.1994. It was also denied that the said judgment and decree were inadmissible for want of registration. Rather, the said judgmen