The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the legal provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Indian Succession Act to determine the genuineness of a Will and the parentage of an individual, emphasizing the onus on the propounder to prove the Will and the requirement to satisfactorily explain suspicious circumstances.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This judgment would dispose of two appeals being R.S.A. Nos. 469 and 470 of 1985 as both the appeals relate to the same property and dispute has been raised by the father and son by filing two suits by taking different stands. Arjan Singh alias Kamal Singh son of Raghbir Singh is the plaintiff-appellant in R.S.A. No. 470 of 1985, whereas the other appeal has been filed by his father plaintiff-appellant Raghbir Singh by invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code). The findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below in both the cases have been challenged by the plaintiff-appellants. The plaintiff-appellant Arjan Singh set up a Will Ex. P-1 dated 31.12.1976 which has been discarded by both the Courts below holding that it was surrounded by unexplained suspicious circumstances. The assertion made by Raghbir Singh father of Arjan Singh in his separate suit was that Hoshiari was the daughter of Smt. Nihali, who was born from the wedlock with her earlier husband before she was married to Hoshiar Singh. A pedigree table would help in understanding as under :-

2. The whole dispute in these appeals revolves around two issues of fact. Foremost and most contentious issue is whether Hoshiari who is conceded to be mother of defendant-respondents 1 to 3, namely, Siri Chand, Brij Pal and Murti was the daughter having been born out of the wedlock of Bhag Singh and Smt. Nihali or Hoshiari was born to Smt. Nihali from her previous husband. The second issue pertains to authenticity of the Will dated 31.12.1976 Ex. P-1.

3. In his Civil Suit No. 450 of 1979 instituted on 13.8.1979/14.9.1982 Arjan Singh alias Kamal Singh sought a declaration with the consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction against defendant-respondents 1 to 3. He set up a Will dated 31.12.1976 Ex. P-1 claiming that on account of the services rendered by him to Hoshiar Singh, the suit property has been bequeathed to him. Hoshiar Singh had died on 29.7.1977 leaving behind Arjan Singh as his sole legal heir. He further alleged that Bhag Singh father of Hoshiar Singh performed a Kareva marriage with Smt. Nihali who brought a daughter, namely, Hoshiari along with her from her previous husband. It was further claimed that out of the wedlock of Bhag Singh and Smt. Nihali, Hoshiar Singh and another daughter were born. The other daughter had died 11/12 days after her birth. Defendant-respondents 1 to 3 who are admittedly children of Hoshiari have claimed that Hoshiari was sister of Hoshiar Singh and was born out of the wedlock of Bhag Singh with Smt. Nihali. Defendant-respondents 1 to 3 got the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour on 13.1.1979 and the appeal filed by plaintiff-appellant Arjan Singh was also dismissed. Both the orders of the revenue authorities have also been challenged

4. Another suit was filed by Raghbir Singh plaintiff-appellant, father of plaintiff-appellant Arjan Singh alias Kamal Singh, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the suit land claiming that he has been in actual physical possession of the suit land as owner and being the legal heir of Hoshiar Singh deceased. In the suit filed by Arjan Singh, Raghbir Singh has also been impleaded as defendant-respondent 4. A common stand has been taken by Raghbir Singh in both the cases as has been done by defendant-respondents 1 to 3 and defendant-respondent 4 Raghbir Singh in the suit filed by Arjan Singh. Both the suits were consolidated and evidence was ordered to be recorded in the suit filed by Arjan Singh.

5. On the issues of genuineness of the Will, both the Courts have found as a fact that the Will is surrounded by umpteen suspicious circumstances which the propounder Arjan Singh has failed to remove. It has not been explained as to how the cutting of digit 8 representing year 1978 has occurred and the same has been substituted by digit 6 in the Will Ex. P-1. Both the Courts have found that the