Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa. J.: - The defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration being owners in possession of ½ share in equal share on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 1.1.2002 and for setting aside mutation no.1084. In the alternative the plaintiffs prayed for the suit for possession or for joint possession and a consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants no.1 to 5 from alienating or mortgaging the suit property, had also been prayed for. It is pleaded that Amar Singh was owner of ½ share in respect of the suit land as fully described in the head note of the plaint. He had two sons namely Malkiat Singh and Karnail Singh i.e the plaintiffs and two daughters namely Jaswinder Kaur, defendant no.1 and Gurmaij Kaur i.e mother of defendants no.2 to 5. He also left behind a widow namely Swaran Kaur, defendant no.6. It was pleaded that Amar Singh had executed an unregistered Will dated 1.1.2002 in favour of his two sons i.e. plaintiffs with whom he had been residing at the time of his death which occurred on 4.7.2002. Accordingly, an application was moved for purposes of mutation of the suit land along with a copy of the Will, whereupon it was discovered that mutation no.1084 had been sanctioned on the basis of natural succession. Against such backdrop the suit had been instituted. Even though, defendants no.1 to 5 put in appearance through counsel but no written statement was filed before the Trial Court and their defence was struck off. Upon their having preferred a revision in this Court, which was allowed and opportunity had been granted to file a written statement, yet, none was filed. In the absence of any written statement no issues were framed by the Trial Court.

3. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and the appeal preferred by the present appellants has been dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Resultantly, the defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this Court.

4. I have heard Mr. Gulzar Mohammad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants at length.

5. Learned counsel would contend that the Will dated 1.1.2002 has not been proved in accordance with law and the Trial Court has erred in holding the same to be valid and genuine will. Learned counsel would further argue that there has been a misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence by the courts below in not holding the Will in question to be a forged and fabricated document.

6. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure exercises a limited jurisdiction. Interference with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below would only be in the event of a substantial question of law arisen for consideration. A question as to whether the Will has been duly proved and as to whether the same is genuine and valid is essentially a question of fact.

7. The due execution of a Will and the statutory requirements for proving the same have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rur Singh (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Bachan Kaur reported as 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 511, wherein it has been observed in the following terms:-

“14. The High Court essentially entered into the arena of appreciation of evidence. It interfered with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. Execution of a Will is required to be proved in terms of the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The statutory requirements to prove a Will in terms of the aforementioned provisions have been laid down in a large number of decisions. We may notice a few of them.

In Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 409: (2003) 2 SCC 91, while dealing with the question elaborately, this Court held:

“8. To say will has been duly executed the requirement mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of S