Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of Will dated 28.08.1990 executed by Manjit Singh real brother of the plaintiff. Mutation in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 has been claimed to be null and void. Plaintiff further sought relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. Plaintiff alleged that plaintiff and Manjit Singh were living in UAE. Manjit Singh was having strained relations with his wife. There were various civil and criminal litigations between them. Plaintiff was serving his brother Manjit Singh. Even they were living in UAE prior to marriage of Manjit Singh. On account of love and affection, Manjit Singh executed a Will dated 28.08.1990 in favour of plaintiff ignoring the defendants in respect of property. Manjit Singh ultimately died on 11.01.1991. Plaintiff became owner of property of Manjit Singh by the dint of Will in question.

3. Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants were making attempts to get the property of Manjit Singh by inheritance. Plaintiff sought jurisdiction of Revenue Court on the basis of Will but failed in his attempt right upto the stage of Financial Commissioner and Will was discarded by the Revenue Authorities.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds of non-maintainability of the suit, res judicata and locus standi of the plaintiff. Defendants also alleged that the Will was adjudicated by the Assistant Collector Grade-I in favour of defendants. Thereafter, plaintiff remained unsuccessful in appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Jalandhar and finally on reference, the Will was discarded by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue in ROR No.515 of 1997- 98. On the basis of Will, the claim of the defendants was accepted. The suit is claimed to be hopelessly time barred. The mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendants and the order of the Revenue Authorities had attained finality. Defendant No.1 also admitted her strained relations with Manjit Singh but claimed that at a subsequent stage there was reconciliation and he was living with defendant before his death. Will is claimed to be the result of fabrication and is unregistered document which has been procured in connivance with Parlhad Kumar, Gurmail Singh, Shiv Singh, close friends and relations of Jaswinder Singh attorney of the plaintiff.

5. After filing replication, following issues were framed:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration to the effect that he is owner over the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 28.08.1990, if so its effects? OPP

1-A) Whether the mutation No.2696 sanctioned in favour of defendant is null and void and is not binding upon the rights of plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as he has no locus standi to file the same? OPD

4. Whether no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the principle of res judicata? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

7. Relief.”

6. To prove their case, both the parties led their respective evidence.

7. Trial Court after considering the material on record held that Will in question is shrouded by mysterious circumstances and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.08.2009. Plaintiff remained unsuccessful in first appeal before the Lower Appellate Court who dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2011.

8. In the present appeal, plaintiff has formulated following substantial questions of law:-

“i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Will Ex.P1 disinheriting respondent with whom the testat