The burden of proof for validating the execution of a Will rests with the propounder, necessitating unimpeachable evidence to satisfy judicial conscience.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J.

Both the plaintiffs have filed separate appeals.

2. During arguments, senior counsel submitted that he does not wish to press RSA No. 876 of 2024 at the behest of plaintiff No.2. The same is ordered to be dismissed as not pressed.

3. RSA No. 839 of 2024 is at the behest of plaintiff No.l Purshotam Kumar Sharma @ Purshotam Kumar.

4. Plaintiffs filed suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners to the extent of l/7th share in the suit land as described in the plaint with the further prayer for decree of perpetual injunction seeking restrain against defendants from interfering in the use and possession of suit land by the plaintiffs and further restraining defendants from alienating or creating charge in any manner over the suit property qua share of deceased Santra @ Santra Devi and Madan Lal. In alternate, the plaintiffs prayed for decree of joint possession in case they are not found to be in possession over the suit land. The dispute relates to the estate inherited by Santra after the death of her husband Jagdish and son Madan Lal. Plaintiff No.2-Prem Lata joined suit claiming herself to be widow of Madan Lal-deceased son of Santra. However, the Lower Appellate Court found that Prem Lata failed to prove herself to be the widow of Madan Lal. Prem Lata has withdrawn the regular second appeal. Thus, the aforesaid finding having attained finality, suit filed on behalf of plaintiff No.2 Prem Lata stands dismissed.

5. In order to appreciate the pleadings raised in the plaint, it will be apt to peruse the pedigree table as given in plaint which reads as under:-

6. Jhabbar died on 01.01.1962. Jagdish pre-deceased him leaving behind his son Madan Lal and widow Santra. After death of Jhabbar, his inheritance was entered in favour of his widow Surji, son Hanuman, 04 daughters and l/7th share of Jagdish was succeeded by Santra and Madan Lal jointly.

7. Plaintiff No.l Purshotam Kumar is brother of Santra. After death of Jagdish, his widow Santra and her son Madan Lal went to the parental village of Santra and started residing with plaintiff No.l Purshotam Kumar. As per plaintiff, Madan Lal married Prem Lata on 29.11.1972. Madan Lal also died issue less. On death of Madan Lal, his share in the suit property was inherited by Santra Devi. She died on 17.03.2009. Plaintiff-Purshotam Kumar has filed present suit seeking declaration in his favour on the strength of unregistered Will dated 09.03.2009, claiming that by way of said Will, Santra bequeathed all her property in his favour. On death of Santra, mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendants. The same was contested by the plaintiff. Apart from contesting the mutation, plaintiff-Purshotam Kumar also complaint against the defendants which led to registration of FIR No. 243 dated 05.07.2009 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.

8. Suit was contested by the defendants. Apart from disputing relationship of plaintiff No.2 with late Madan Lal, there is no serious dispute qua relationship of Purshotam Kumar-plaintiff with Santra Devi. Execution of Will is disputed. It was further claimed that though Santra was residing in her maternal village, but she was residing separately from plaintiffs and had no jointness with them. Santra had thus, no reason to execute Will in favour of plaintiff No.l. Defendant No.l also filed counter claim seeking declaration to the effect that he, along with his sisters is entitled to succeed to l/7th share in the suit land being successors of deceased-Madan Lal and Santra.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, Court of the first instance fr