The suit was time-barred, and the defendants successfully proved the execution of the Will, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

 The plaintiff-appellant assails the correctness of the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. He prays for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is also the owner along with defendants in equal share in the property of late Sh. Chatra.

2. In order to understand the inter-se relationship between the parties, it would be appropriate to extract genealogy of the family:-

3. Tota Ram and Chatra were owners to the extent of equal share in the land measuring 130 kanals and 10 marlas. Sh. Tota Ram died in the year 1990 and his share in the property was inherited by the parties to the suit. Late Sh. Chatra was issuless. His wife had pre-deceased him. The plaintiff claims that late Sh. Chatra died intestate on 16.10.1992, therefore, his property is inherited by the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff also claims that the contesting defendants have, in collusion with the revenue officials, got entered the mutation No.295 on the basis of a forged Will dated 25.09.1992.

4. Defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit. It was pleaded that late Sh. Chatra, during his life time, executed a Will on 25.09.1992, bequeathing his estate in favour of the answering defendants. After the death of late Sh. Chatra, the revenue authorities sanctioned the mutation in favour of the answering defendants on 17.01.1993, on verifying the execution and attestation of the Will by the witnesses.

5. The plaintiff did not file any replication to the written statement.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether Sh. Chatra died in testate on 16.10.92POPP

2. Whether the mutation No. 1295 of inheritance of late Chatra in favour of defendants is illegal, null and void POPP

3. Whether late Chatra never executed any Will dated 25.09.1992POPP

4. Whether the Will dated 25.09.1992 in favour of defendant no.1 to 5 is illegal and void POPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for ?OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction, as prayed for ?OPP

7. Whether the suit is time barred POPD

8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form POPD

9. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit POPD

10. Relief"

7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, appeared as PW1. He also examined Smt. Rajwati, pro forma defendant no.8 as PW2. The plaintiff produced a copy of the jamabandi for the year 1989-1990 and copies of certain mutations.

8. On the other hand, the defendants examined the scribe of the Will Sh. D.R.Saini as DW1. Both the attesting witnesses of the Will were also examined, Lila Ram (proforma defendant No.6) as DW2 and Sh. Sohan Lal, Lambardar, as DW3. Mohar Singh, defendant no.3 appeared as DW4. The defendants produced a copy of the Will dated 25.09.1992. On an application for permission to lead secondary evidence, the defendants were permitted to prove the Will vide order dated 08.02.2010. The defendants also produced copies of certain mutation entries.

9. As noticed above, both the courts after recording a finding of fact that the defendants have successfully proved the execution of the Will dated 25.09.1992, dismissed the suit.

10. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff has filed two applications for permission to lead additional evidence. In the first application, he wants to produce medical certificate dated 09.12.2011 and the evidence regarding the correct date of death of late Sh. Chatra. In the second application, the plaintiff prays for permission to produce a copy of the mortgage deed dated 19.03.1981. He further prays for permission to get the thumb impression of late Sh. Chatra on the mortgage deed dated 19.03.1981, compared with the thumb impression of late Sh. Chatra on the Will dated 25.09.1992 and the register (Note book) of the scribe.

11. On 02.02.2017, the appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:-

"(i). Whether the Will dated 25.9.92 is a fraudulent document?

(ii). Whether the respo