Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri R.S. Maurya, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellants and Sri S.S. Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant/respondents.

2. The instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 7.11.1996 passed by the XVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1994 confirming the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1994 passed by the trial Court in original suit No. 409 of 1979.

3. The original suit was instituted for cancellation of the Will dated 14.12.1966 executed by one Khachedu in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs case is that Khachedu had three sons namely Faggan (plaintiff), Bhagwan Sahai and Man Singh (defendants). Khachedu died on 16.7.1977. The plaintiff moved an application for mutation of his name over his 1/3 share, which was contested by the defendants on the basis of the Will dated 14.12.1966. Claim of the plaintiff/appellants is that the said Will is forged document and it was prepared only with an intention to grab share of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also claimed that the property was purchased by Khachedu from finances provided by the plaintiff. The defendants disputed the plaint case and denied that the plaintiff is son of Khachedu but it was pleaded that the plaintiff is son of Bhinka.

4. A criminal complaint was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants and Khachedu where he had shown himself to be his son. In additional plea, it was also stated by the defendants that Khachedu appeared in the witness box and denied the plaintiff to be his son. Record of the mutation case was summoned from the revenue Court. Preliminary objection regarding limitation was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 8.4.1994. However, the suit was dismissed with the findings that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the Will was forged or he is son of Khachedu. Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1994 was preferred before the XVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, which has also been dismissed.

5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellants has raised a number of substantial questions of law but has addressed the Court on the following substantial questions of law, which are quoted below :

“(1) Whether burden lies on the propounder of the Will to prove due execution of the Will and remove all suspicious circumstances, the Courts below have wrongly shifted the burden on the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and was liable to be cancelled on this ground alone?

(3) Whether on the statement submitted by Khachedu under Section 6 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, the plaintiff was shown as son of Khachedu and Khachedu took benefit under Section 4 (7) of that Act on a subsequent date, recital in the Will that Khachedu had only two sons make the Will highly suspicious and forged.

(4) Whether the judgment of the criminal Court is inadmissible in evidence and in any case its photostat copy is not admissible ?"

6. The main emphasis of the Counsel for the appellants is on the basis of statement said to have been filed by Khachedu before the ceiling authority, it was mentioned that he had three sons and this benefit was also availed by him. Record from the ceiling office was also summoned and an application along with statement filed by Khachedu was adduced in evidence.

7. Next submission on behalf of the appellants is that the Courts below committed an illegality while placing reliance on the judgment and order dated 9.11.1966 in the criminal case, which was not admissible in view of Sections 40 to 43 of Indian Evidence Act.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants has stressed that the Will was executed in a highly suspicious circumstances and if Khachedu had only two sons, there was no reason for him to execute the Will as they were natural surviver after his death. The defendants failed to give any reason as to why the Will was executed coupled with the statement before the ceiling authority. The Will is shro