JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Plaintiff of the suit is before this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as Civil Suit N: 73-CS-RBT of 2014 tiled 'Balwinder Singh vs. Amrit Pal Singh & Others' filed by him for declaration, mandatory injunction & grant of mesne profits was dismissed by trial court of Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Ambala vide judgment dated 31.08.2016; and the appeal (CA N: 471 of 2016) filed by him was dismissed by the first Appellate Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, Ambala on 02.04.2019.

2. Trial court record called and perused. To avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial court.

3. The dispute is regarding ownership of House No.15, Adarsh Colony, Golden Town, Ambala City. Admittedly, sole plaintiff Balwinder Singh and the three defendants Amritpal Singh, Birender Singh and Tejwinder Singh are real brothers. House in dispute was admittedly owned by their mother Smt. Gurcharan Kaur.

4.1 Plaintiff claimed title to the suit property on the basis of an unregistered will dated 18.08.2013 purported to have been executed by Smt. Gurcha-ran Kaur in his favour. He claimed the defendants to be licensee on the suit property and that he had revoked their license and so, prayed for possession of the suit property by directing the defendants to vacate the same. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Gurcharan Kaur while executing the will dated 18.08.2013 had cancelled the earlier will dated 28.06.2002 and this way, the will dated 18.08.2013 as relied upon by him is her last will.

4.2 Defendants contested the suit. They alleged the will relied by the plaintiff to be a forged and fabricated document. They denied that were licensee on the suit property. They further claimed that plaintiff was the eldest son of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and had been disowned by her long back.

4.3 Necessary issues were framed. Both the parties led evidence to support their respective stand.

4.4 Both the Courts below disbelieved the version of the plaintiff regarding the will and held that the will dated 18.08.2013 relied by the plaintiff was not duly proved in accordance with law. Suit and consequently the appeal were dismissed by the Courts below.

5. It may be noted here itself that one of the defendants namely Amritpal Singh had expired during pendency of the appeal before the first Appellate Court. His wife and the only son had already expired in a road traffic accident and therefore, the three surviving brothers (already parties to the suit) being the only legal heirs, so, the name of said defendant No.l - respondent N: 1 Amritpal Singh was directed to be deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 21.05.2018 of Ld. ADD, Ambala and the appeal was allowed to be pursued between the appellant and the surviving respondents by keeping the issue of LR of estate of deceased Amritpal Singh as open.

6. Before this Court, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that Courts below have wrongly held the will to be not proved, as one of the defendant Birender Singh in his testimony as DW3 had admitted the signature of Smt. Gurcharan Kaur on the will Ex.P-1 and therefore, the same could not have been ignored. It is also contended that none of the attesting witnesses to the will could be examined, as their whereabouts could not be found and that repeated summons were sent to them to appear before the Court but they did not appear.

7. This court has considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the appellant and has appraised the record carefully.

8. The sole dispute between the parties is regarding the validity of the will dated 18.08.2013, as to whether it has been proved in accordance with law or not. Said will Ex.P-1 is purported to be scribed by Jasbir Singh (PW-1) and it is purported to be attested by two witnesses namely Jaswinder Singh and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur.

9. The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ