Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - “Whether the findings of the Courts below holding the registered Will dated 06.02.1996 (Ex.P1) to be non-genuine, are based on misinterpretation and misreading of evidence.”

The above substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.

Brief Facts:-

1. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that he along with defendants-respondents No.3 and 4 is owner in possession of the suit land as fully described in the head note of the plaint on the basis of registered Will dated 06.02.1996 executed by Jaisi Ram, father of appellant and respondent No.3 and husband of Smt. Achari Devi. During the pendency of appeal, Smt. Achari Devi died. As no relief was claimed against her, she was given up as respondent No.4.

2. Admittedly, Jaisi Ram was owner of the suit property. He died in the year 1998. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that during his life time Jaisi Ram executed a registered Will dated 06.02.1996 in favour of appellant and respondents No.3 and 4 in lieu of services rendered to him. Defendants-respondents No.1 and 2 were married more than 20 years ago and were living with their family and never served Jaisi Ram in his old age. They even did not attend the marriage of younger sister of appellant namely Sarjiwan Kumari and got the mutation of the estate of Jaisi Ram sanctioned on the basis of intestate succession compelling the appellant to file the suit.

3. Respondent No.1 and Smt. Achari Devi filed joint written statement, wherein they described the registered Will dated 06.02.1996 as forged, manipulated, invalid and fabricated document. They also denied the possession of the appellant and respondents No.3 and 4 over the suit property. The mutation of inheritance of Jaisi Ram was sanctioned vide mutation No.1647 dated 26.08.2002 in favour of all his legal heirs. It has been averred that Sarjiwan Kumari got married in the year 1994 and is having four children and living in her matrimonial house, therefore, there was no question of rendering services by her to her father Jaisi Ram. The Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Prem Chand, marginal witness was wrongly shown as resident of Naurangpur, where suit property is situated while in fact, he is not residing there. The suit land was purchased by respondents No.1 and 2 in favour of their father Jaisi Ram after paying the entire sale consideration in the year 1965. The appellant did not produce any Will of late Shri Jaisi Ram at the time of mutation of his estate.

4. The pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-

(1) Whether Jaisi Ram, since deceased, executed a legal and valid Will dated 6.2.1996 in favour of the plaintiff and defendants Nos.3 and 4 ?OPP

(2) Whether the plaintiff and defendants Nos.3 and 4 are owners in possession of the suit land as prayed for ?OPP

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration ?OPP

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for in the form of consequential relief ?OPP

(5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ?OPD

(6) Whether the Will dated 6.2.1996 is a forged, manipulated, invalid and fabricated document ?OPD

(7) Relief.

5. In order to prove the execution of the Will, appellant Multan Singh appeared as PW1 and examined Prem Chand, the marginal witness of the Will as PW2. Admittedly, the other marginal witness of the Will, Rai Singh, Lamberdar of village Naurangpur had died.

6. On the other hand, respondent No.1 Satpal himself appeared as DW1 and examined Kewal Singh of village Naurangpur as DW2 and Harbans Lal, Ex-Sarpanch of village Naurangpur as DW3.

7. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence found certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and recorded the findings on issues No.1 to 4 against the appellant-plaintiff while findings on issues No.5 and 6 were recorded in his favour. However, the suit was dismissed.

8. The factors which weighed before the