The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a Will in accordance with the law, the limitations on the admissibility of documents as evidence, and the significance of the period of limitation in property disputes.

Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.

Present regular second appeal, filed by the plaintiff, against judgment & decree dated 25.9.2009, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa, whereby judgment & decree dated 20.8.2008, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sardulgarh was set aside.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

3. Relevant facts of the case as set up by the plaintiff that he had filed suit for declaration on the ground that he is joint owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of registered Will No. 371 dated 17.3.1966 of Ravat Ram. Defendants have no concern with the suit land but they got it mutated vide mutations No. 2934 dated 15.1.1976 & No. 3953 dated 3.7.1992, which are wrong, illegal and against law and fact, the same are liable to be set aside. Plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 12 from alienating the suit land more than their share.

4. Defendants contested the suit on the ground that the suit land was owned by Ravat Ram. Relationship of Ravat Ram and Seo Ram as well as pedigree table was also admitted. Defendants denied the execution of Will of Ravat Ram dated 17.3.1966 bearing No. 371 but took the plea that Will No. 372 dated 17.3.1966 executed by Sheo Ram in favour of Aas Ram was correct. That way, Ravat Ram was not entitled to execute any Will. Defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On these facts, the Court of first instance settled the issues and parties were asked to lead their respective evidence. After hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance decreed the suit of plaintiff. Defendants preferred appeal before the first Appellate Court, who reversed the said findings, thereby dismissing the suit of plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved of passing of the judgment & decree by the first Appellate Court, plaintiff is before this Court by way of present regular second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that first Appellate Court has set aside the well reasoned judgment, passed by the Court of first instance, without any reasoning or justified grounds. The first Appellate Court had taken a technical view of the matter that application for secondary evidence was not proved before tendering the Will in question dated 17.3.1966 (Ex.P1/A) in evidence of PW.1 Mr. Ved Bhushan Goyal, Advocate. To the contrary, PW.4 Thakur Dass, from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Mansa also proved certified copies of Will No. 371 (Ex.P1), its endorsement (Ex.P2) and Will No. 372 (Ex.P3) and its endorsement (Ex.P4). Both the attesting witnesses have already expired. Raja Ram appeared as PW.5 and proved death certificates of attesting witnesses as Ex.P15 & Ex.P16. Plaintiff had produced on the file the best evidence available with them. It was not a case of simply tendering the evidence. So the first Appellate Court took erroneous view and as such the impugned judgment & decree are liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that undisputedly both the Wills are registered. However, the Will (Ex.P1) established by plaintiff has been disputed by the defendants and the main objection is regarding mode of proof of the Will.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that undisputedly Will (Ex.P1) is more than 30 years old document and beneficiaries of the Will were minor at that time. The said Will has already been proved by examining the scribe of the Will, namely Mr. Ved Bhushan Goyal, Advocate (PW.1). Apart from that, plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW.2 and produced certified copy of the Will of Ravat Ram and Sheo Ram and their endorsements. The ancestral nature of the property is not disputed. More so, as the document is more than 30 years old, there is valid presumption of its being genuine under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinaf