Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is a plaintiff’s appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. This Court, after hearing under Order XLI Rule 11, formulated following substantial question of law:

“(A) For the purpose of computing the period of 20 years under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1872”), what shall be the date for reckoning the period.”

2. Heard Sri Dhruva Narayan and Sri S.K. Srivastava, Advocates for plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff”) and Sri Krishna Mohan, Advocate for defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”).

3. During course of arguments, this Court finds that there are some more issues which, if answered in favour of plaintiff, may substantially bear on the ultimate decision of Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as the “LAC”) and, therefore, are substantial questions of law, which also need be answered in this case, and they are:

“(B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 90 at all is attracted to ‘Will’ dated 16.5.1983 registered on 17.5.1983?

(C) Whether certified copy of a document i.e. ‘Will’ obtained from Registry Department, can attract presumption of its being a validly executed document, containing true contents of original document, or, it has to be rejected unless formally proved with regard to its execution and attestation etc.

(D) Whether mere presumption under Section 90 of Act, 1872 would satisfy the requirement of proof of a ‘Will’ without proving execution and attestation as contemplated in Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1925”) read with Section 68 of Act, 1872.”

4. The plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 166 of 1993 for possession of property in dispute, compensation and also for cancellation of ‘Will’ dated 2.12.1990.

5. The plaint case, in brief is, that House No. 179 (new number 307), Bai Ka Bagh, Allahabad was owned by Dr. J.N. Samaddar (now deceased). The plaintiff and defendant No. 1, both, are real brothers and sons of Dr. J.N. Samaddar, while defendant No. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is the son of plaintiff. Dr. J.N. Samaddar acquired the property in question vide gift deed dated 26.6.1944, which at that time, was an open piece of land, whereupon he constructed a house. In the municipal record, his name was entered, as owner of disputed premises. Dr. Samaddar executed a ‘Will’ dated 16.5.1983 in favour of plaintiff and aforesaid ‘Will’ was registered vide Registry Bahi No. 3, Zild No. 246, Page No. 60-62 at serial No. 182, dated 17.5.1983. No property was assigned by Dr. Samaddar to any other legal heir, i.e., defendant No. 1 and his two daughters. Dr. Samaddar died on 7.6.1991, whereafter plaintiff became entitled for entire property of Dr. Samaddar, pursuant to ‘Will’ dated 16.5.1983. The defendant No. 1, real brother of plaintiff, was allowed to reside in a portion of house, but he started playing fraud, and, let out premises on rent also. On account of unauthorised activities of defendants, the plaintiff initially instituted Original Suit No. 503 of 1991 for a declaration and possession but aforesaid suit was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one, and thence, suit in question, was instituted.

6. The defendants contested suit claiming that Dr. Samaddar, by ‘Will’ dated 2.12.1990, bequeathed entire property in dispute to the defendants and, therefore, plaintiff has no right over property in dispute. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. The Trial Court framed nine issues, and, for the purpose of present case, relevant issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9, are as under:

^^1& D;k oknh dfFkr olh;r fnukad 16&5&1983 ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr edku dk rugk ekfyd gS ?

2&Dk fookfnr edku ij izfroknhx.k dk dCtk ykblsUlh ds :i esa gS ?

3& D;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls fookfnr edku dk dCtk izkIr djus ,oa 10@&izfrfnu ds fglkc ls {kfriwfrZ izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS ?

4& D;k nkok oknh dkyckf/kr gS ?

9& D;k ok