JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the PUNJAB COURTS ACT , 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. While filing the second appeal, the plaintiff assails the correctness of the judgments and decrees passed on 06.11.2013 and 25.08.2015 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), S.B.S.Nagar, and the Additional District Judge, S.B.S.Nagar, respectively.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff-Sh.Sant Ram filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration, to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the land/property measuring 0 kanals and 7 marlas being 7/10th share in the plot measuring 0 Kanals and 10 marlas comprised in khasra No. 235 (0-7) and 244 (0-3) situated in the residential area of the village Sarhal Quazian, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar and the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82 regarding the share of the plaintiff and the jamabandies for the subsequent years are against the facts, incorrect and are liable to be set aside, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating or transferring the suit land or from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff in any manner.

4. It is the cases of the plaintiff that Sh.Bachitter Singh, Sh.Jagtar Singh, Sh.Surjit Singh and Sh.Mohan Singh, who were the owners in possession of 7/10th share of the suit property, sold the same vide registered sale deed dated 05.09.1972 to late Sh.Babu Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and defendant No.16 to 20. On the execution of the sale deed, the possession was delivered and in the revenue record, the mutation regarding the sale deed was entered and sanctioned in favour of late Sh.Babu Ram. Thereafter, late Sh.Babu Ram was in possession of the aforesaid land and after his death, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the Will dated 25.04.1978 executed by late Sh.Babu Ram in favour of the plaintiff. While preparing jamabandi for the year 1981-82, the share of late Sh.Babu Ram was wrongly reflected as 7/40 instead of 7/10, resulting in reduction of his ownership from the plot measuring 7 marlas to 2.5 marlas. None of the defendants contested the suit.

5. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and produced the sale deed dated 05.09.1972 as Ex.P1, a copy of the Will dated 25.04.1978 as Ex.P2, copies of the jamabandies from the year 1976-77 to 2001-02 as Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. PW.2-Sh.Gopal Dass appeared in evidence and has supported the case of the plaintiff.

6. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that not only he failed to prove the execution of the Will dated 25.04.1978 in accordance with section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1872 Act") but also failed to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The trial Court further held that the plaintiff has failed to trace the ownership of his vendor. In the first appeal, on permission granted, the plaintiff produced the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Ex.PX) in additional evidence, on perusal whereof, Court found that the suit property was transferred by Sh.Bachitter Singh, Sh.Jagtar Singh, Sh.Surjit Singh and Sh.Mohan Singh in favour of late Sh.Babu Ram. A photocopy of mutat