TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

This is defendants' second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below.

2. The facts in brief as pleaded by the parties are, the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming that on the basis of Will dated 29.11.2007 (Ex.PW2/B) executed by Kishan Kaur, he is the owner of the suit property. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants by pleading that the Will dated 29.11.2007 was outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. It was cancelled by Kishan Kaur of her free will during her lifetime, and a Will dated 26.01.2008 was executed by her in favour of her grandsons (defendants herein). The suit property was situated at Kapurthala but the alleged Will dated 29.11.2007 was executed and registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar-I.

3. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the Will dated 29.11.2007 was validly executed and stood duly proved on record as a registered document. At the same time, the subsequent Will dated 26.01.2008 (Ex.D1) in favour of the defendants cannot be relied upon as it was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Now the defendants are in regular second appeal before this Court challenging the findings of both the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the only ground on which plaintiff’s suit has been decreed is that the Will dated 29.11.2007 was a registered document. The Courts below have ignored the fact that this Will stood rescinded by the subsequent Will in the defendants’ favour executed by Kishan Kaur on 26.01.2008, which stands duly proved on record by examining the scribe, DW4, as well as the attesting witnesses, DW2 and DW3. Learned counsel has further argued that the plaintiff’s suit was time barred as they approached the Court only in 2016 on the basis of a Will dated 29.11.2007, its executant also died on 28.07.2008.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that findings of both the Courts below are well reasoned and need to be upheld as the defendants have not been able to prove the execution or genuineness of the subsequent Will propounded by them dated 26.01.2008.

6. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Courts below establish that the Will, dated 29.11.2007, was a registered document and the attesting witnesses, PW4 and PW7, have duly proved its due execution. They confirmed in cross-examination that on 29.11.2007 Kishan Kaur came and asked them to accompany her to the Tehsil complex as she wanted to execute the Will in question in favour of Shri Harmandir Sahib/plaintiff. PW5-scribe of the Will was also examined. The registration of Will was duly proved by PW6-Junior Assistant from the office of Sub Registrar, Amritsar-I. In fact, the defendants have also admitted execution of the Will dated 29.11.2007. Their stand is that the Will was a result of fraud played upon them as her signatures were taken on the pretext of getting papers signed for claiming monthly pension from the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Committee, Amrtisar. But ingredients of the alleged fraud could not be proved on record; no evidence to that effect was led by the defendants. Therefore, the plea has been rightly discarded by both the Courts below.

7. With regard to the subsequent Will dated 26.01.2008 (Ex.D1) in favour of the defendants’, the case is that it was executed in their favour by Kishan Kaur as she was pleased by their services and used to reside with them too. They were the ones who used to look after her. This assertion also stands belied by the testimony of DW3 itself, who stated in the cross examination that Kishan Kaur used to reside with her daughter Satnam Kaur. No document, like ration card or Aadhaar card of Kishan Kaur, could be proved on record to establish that she was residing with the defendants. It could not even be shown by the defendants that they performed last rites of Kishan Kaur. On the other han