JUDGMENT :

Virinder Aggarwal, J.

1. The appellants have instituted the present appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.02.1997, delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, which reversed and set aside the earlier judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge First Class, Patiala on 26.02.1992.

2. The appellants/plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 filed a suit claiming to be the legal heirs of Amar Singh based on a Will dated July 21, 1985, executed by Amar Singh in their favour. The plaintiffs asserted ownership and possession of a 1/18th share each in the disputed land, relying on the Will dated 21.07.1985, and challenged the earlier Will dated 10.02.1985, as illegal, null-&-void, and as revoked by the later Will. The defendants contested the suit, arguing that Amar Singh never executed the Will dated 21.07.1985, and that the mutation was correctly sanctioned based on the Will dated 10.02.1985.

3. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Amar Singh deceased executed a valid will dt. 21.7.1985 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP

2. Whether Amar Singh deceased executed a valid will dt. 10.2.1985 in favour of defendants? OPD

3. Whether suit land is coparcenary and joint Hindu family properly? if so to what effect? OPP

4. Relief.

4. The Learned Sub-Judge First Class, Patiala, initially decreed the suit in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, recognizing them as co-owners of the suit land with a 1/18th share each, premised on the Will dated 21.07.1985. However, upon appeal by the defendants, the Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, set-aside the Sub-Judge's judgment and decree, holding that the Will propounded by the plaintiffs was enveloped in suspicious circumstances, which the plaintiffs failed to adequately dispel. Aggrieved by this reversal, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. Notice of motion was duly issued to the respondents, who appeared through their counsel, Mr. Madan Lal Saini, Advocate. The Lower Court Record (LCR) has been requisitioned for further proceedings.

5. I have reviewed the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the respondents but find them to be without merit.

6. Regarding the jurisdiction and ambit of a second appeal, it is now a well-established legal principle that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are to be construed as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, rather than under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This position has been authoritatively affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs and others v. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157, and subsequently reiterated in Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR v. Ram Parkash and others, (2019) 11 SCC 317, and Satender and others v. Saroj and others, 2022 (12) SCALE 92. In light of the precedent established by these rulings, it is unnecessary to frame any question of law in the present matter.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs vehemently submitted that the impugned findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge are untenable in law and fact. It was argued that the learned Additional District Judge failed to duly appreciate that the Will had been properly and validly proved through the examination of witnesses in strict compliance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Furthermore, the so-called suspicious circumstances relied upon by the Additional District Judge are wholly insufficient to impugn or set aside the Will, which was executed in favor of all the natural heirs, thereby effectuating a lawful and natural disposition of the property. Counsel emphasized that no natural heir has been disinherited or excluded under the Will. Accordingly, it was urged that the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge on Issue No. 1, as re-framed in appeal, ought to be reversed, and the findings of the learned Sub-Judge First Class, Patiala, ought to be affirmed. Reliance was placed on the authoritative