The propounder of a Will carries the burden to dispel suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution; failure to prove authenticity results in its rejection.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2001, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad; whereby the appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.1999 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs for declaration that they alongwith defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit, are entitled to inherit 1/4^th share of Hari Singh, on the basis of Will dated 07.05.1986 executed by Hari Singh and for further declaration that the decree dated 01.02.1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986 by the learned Sub Judge, 1^st Class, Palwal, is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the appellants-plaintiffs qua the share of late Shri Hari Singh; had been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, in the suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, it is their pleaded case that they alongwith defendant No. 4 in the suit and late Hari Singh were co-sharers in possession of the agricultural land as detailed in the suit. In the plaint, the family tree depicting the relationship between the parties, is shown as under :-

3. Appellants-plaintiffs claimed that late Hari Singh son of Kishori alias Kishora executed a Will on 07.05.1986 whereby he willed away all his moveable and immovable properties in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit; in equal shares. It has come on record that Hari Singh expired on 14.05.1986.

In the suit, the appellants-plaintiffs also stated that during the lifetime of Hari Singh; defendants No. 1 to 3 filed a Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986 against the aforesaid Hari Singh and their own father Devi Sahai (defendant No. 4 in the suit) claiming themselves to be the owner in possession of the share of Hari Singh on the basis of family settlement. Appellants-plaintiffs claimed that in the said Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986, Devi Sahai (defendant No. 4 in present suit) filed written statement dated 30.04.1986 on behalf of late Hari Singh as his general power of attorney; admitting the entire claim of plaintiffs (defendants No. 1 to 3 herein) in Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986. Appellants-plaintiffs averred that the written statement dated 30.04.1986 was not thumb marked by late Hari Singh, however, his statement was recorded on the same day, which was got thumb marked by playing fraud by Devi Sahai (defendant No. 4 in present suit).

The aforesaid Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986 filed by defendants No. 1 to 3 herein, was decreed by the learned Sub Judge, 1^st Class, Palwal, on 01.02.1990.

The aforesaid judgment and decree dated 01.02.1990 was challenged by the appellants-plaintiffs on the plea that the Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986, filed by defendants No. 1 to 3 herein could not have been decreed as late Shri Hari Singh had already executed a Will on 07.05.1986, whereby he had willed away his properties in favour of appellants-plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 to 3 herein. It was further pleaded that even otherwise the aforesaid decree in Civil Suit No. 305 of 1986 is liable to be set aside as the value of the suit land exceeded Rs. 100/- and defendants No. 1 to 3 have no pre existing right in suit land therefore the said decree was compulsorily registrable and the same was not registered. The appellants-plaintiffs further maintained that the defendants in the suit were bent upon to alienate the suit land on the basis of decree dated 01.02.1990, which would result in ir