JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Vide this judgment, I shall be disposing of two appeals bearing RSA No.673 of 2013 and RSA No.960 of 2013, although, arising from different suits, however, between the same parties and the issues which require determination are common. Counsel for the parties are also agreed that both the appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

2. In RSA No.673 of 2013, Sukh Lal-plaintiff since deceased had challenged the execution of the sale deed executed by him dated 02.06.1998 whereas in RSA No.960 of 2013, Sukh Lal has challenged the judgment and decree passed on the basis of a consent dated 07.08.1998. The sale deed as well as Civil Court decree is in favour of Braham Parkash.

3. To understand the inter se relationship between the parties, a small pedigree table shall be convenient which is drawn as under:-

4. It is apparent that Sukh Lal was a childless bachelor. He alleged to have executed the following documents in favour of Braham Parkash who was great grand-son of Fattu or in other words, he was grandson of cousin of Sukh Lai. The documents executed are as under:-

1. A registered Will dated 21.07.1995 Ex.D-7.

2. A registered Will dated