JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

1. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of 1/3rd share of the suit property, has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. In order to correctly appreciate the dispute at hand, following pedigree table shall be useful: -

Brief facts of the case are that Lalu, father of the plaintiff had died when Surta Ram/plaintiff was very young. Surta Ram-plaintiff was brought up by his uncle Nihalu, who had died on 02.07.1982. Nihalu had died issueless and widow-less. It is the case of the plaintiff that Nihalu had executed a Will dated 15.03.1982 (Ex.P1) in favour of the plaintiff; and therefore, on the death of Nihalu, the plaintiff had inherited the suit property left by him. It was pleaded that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff and the defendants were now in illegal possession. It was further contended that defendants No.1 and 2 had executed a forged Will dated 12.01.1982 allegedly executed by Nihalu in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. With these pleadings, present suit was filed by the plaintiff on 15.06.1985.

3. Upon notice, defendants No.2 to 4 had filed their joint written statement denying allegations made in the plaint. It was averred that the Will dated 15.03.1982 (Ex.P1) produced by the plaintiff was a forged document; and the Will dated 12.01.1982 was the last registered Will of Nihalu in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. On the basis of this Will dated 12.1.1982,, a mutation of inheritance was also sanctioned by the revenue authorities in favour of the said defendants. It was further claimed that Nihalu in his lifetime had been living with defendants No.1 and 2 and had been looked after by them and in response for the service rendered to him by defendants No.1 and 2, Nihalu had executed the registered Will dated 12.01.1982 in their favour.

4. Defendant No. 5 had filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the averments mentioned in the written statement filed by defendants No. 2 to 4.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.09.1985: -

'1. Whether the deceased Nihalu son of Kirpa executed a valid will dated 15-3-1982 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP.

2. Whether the present suit is not maintainable as alleged OPD.

3. Whether the suit is collusive as alleged? OPD.

4. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs, if so to what amount OPD.

5. Relief.

6. Vide order dated 31.3.1989 following additional issues were settled from the amended pleadings of the parties: -

6. Whether deceased Nihalu executed a valid Will dated 12.1.1982 in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 OPD: 1&2.

7. If issues No.1 & 6 are not proved then to what extent plaintiff is entitled for the estate left by deceased Nihalu OPP. Parties."

7. On the basis of the pleadings, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.1991 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. The appeal filed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.1993. Hence, present 2nd Appeal by defendants No.1 and 2.

8. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 that the learned Courts were in patent error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as they failed to appreciate that the Will in favour of the appellants was a registered document, in pursuance to which even a mutation was sanctioned in their favour. On the other hand, a close examination of the Will dated 15.03.1982 (Ex.P1) shows that the same is not proved to have been executed in accordance with law. Moreover, the same is not a registered document. As such, presumption of tr