JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

Plaintiff (appellant herein through his LRs) of the suit is aggrieved by the judgment/decree dated 03.11.1992 passed by the First Appellate Court of Id. Additional District Judge, affirming the judgment & decree dated 11.12.1990 of the trial Court, whereby suit filed by him seeking declaration of his title to the suit property to the extent of l/6th share was dismissed.

2. Trial Court record was called. Same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3. Smt. Punjabi was married to Kartara @ Kartar Singh. From their wedlock, Puran Singh @ Purna was born. Said Puran Singh died unmarried and issueless. On the death of Kartara @ Kartar Singh, Smt. Punjabi performed marriage with Kahla Singh @ Kallu and from this wedlock, six issues, namely, Prem Singh, Ajmer Singh, Jagir Singh, Ram Singh, Joginder and Ajmer Kaur were born. Prem Singh is plaintiff. Defendants N: 1 to 4 are heirs of Ajmer Singh. Jagir Singh & Ram Singh are defendants N: 5 & 6. Joginder and Ajmer Kaur are impleaded as party to the suit.

4. The dispute pertains to 27 kanal 12 marla of land, which belonged to Puran Singh. Plaintiff claims 1/6 share in the said land submitting that after the death of Puran Singh, six legal heirs of the mother of Puran Singh @ Purna had inherited the same in equal share. He further alleged that Will as purported to be executed by Puran Singh, was null and void.

5. Defendants contested the claim, pleading title to the suit property on the basis of Will dated 15.2.1980 of Puran Singh in favour of Ajmer Singh i.e., predecessor of defendants N: 1 to 4 and defendants N: 5 & 6. It was further claimed that plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit, as at the time of sanctioning of the mutation on 01.04.1980 based upon the Will, he had not raised any objection.

6. In replication, plaintiff denied his presence at the time of sanctioning of mutation. He further submitted that mutation was got sanctioned in very suspicious way on the same date, when Puran had died.

7. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding the defendants to be owner of the suit property based on the Will of Puran Singh. The judgment dated 11.12.1990 to this effect passed by the trial Court has been affirmed by the Appellate Court on 03.11.1992, in the appeal filed by the plaintiff.

8. Against the aforesaid concurrent findings, the plaintiff has approached this Court.

9. During pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant Prem Singh expired and his legal representatives were brought on record.

10.1 It is contended by Id. counsel for the appellant that original Will was never produced before the Court for comparing the purported thumb signature of Puran Singh on the Will with his sample signatures. Although it was observed by the First Appellate Court that original Will had been produced at the time of sanctioning of the mutation before the Revenue Authorities, but defendants did not take any steps so as to summon any official from revenue department to produce the original Will and as such, copy of the Will could not have been taken into consideration.

10.2 It is further contended that out of the two attesting witnesses to the Will namely, Chetu Ram and Gurdev, Chetu Ram had expired; whereas, Gurdev was alive but still he was not examined on the ground that he had sided with the plaintiff.

10.3 Ld. counsel contends that the Will is held to have been proved by both the Courts below only on the basis of statement of scribe Prem Singh, who could not be considered to be an attesting witness. Ld. counsel further submits that as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act to be read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, at least one of the attesting witnesses is required to be examined to prove the Will. It is contended that Section 69 of the Evidence Act, will come into play only in case none of the attesting