Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N.L. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is plaintiffs’ Second Appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated, 7.5.2003, passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Singh, Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad, in Civil Appeal No. 218 of 2002, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 19.9.2002, passed by Sri Kamlesh Dubey, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hapur, dismissing the Original Suit No. 398 of 1978 of the plaintiffs has been confirmed and the suit of the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

3. The plaintiff instituted an Original Suit No. 398 of 1978, praying for a decree of cancellation of the will revocation deed dated 16.10.1975.

4. The plaintiffs’ case is that Panna Lal and Nand Kishore, son of Harvans Lal, were real brothers; that Panna Lal had only 2 daughters, namely, Smt. Ramrati Devi, wife of Chandrabhan and Smt. Rameshwari Devi wife of Sri Ganesh Dutt, at the time of execution of the disputed document; that Nand Kishore had 2 sons, namely, Dr.Ramesh Dutt Sharma and Mahesh Dutt Sharma; that both the brothers had inherited land from their father and the same was divided during consolidation proceeding; that Panna Lal had Chak No. 239 (area 9-6-13) and as per the provisions of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1952, this land was to be inherited by brother Nand Kishore or his sons but Panna Lal probably desired that after his death all his moveable and immoveable property should go to his 2 daughters; that wife of Panna Lal died in 1970 and he executed a Will dated 16.10.1975 in favour of his 2 married daughters and got the same registered; that Nand Kishore had full knowledge of the Will dated 16.10.1975 executed by his brother, Panna Lal and since 1976 -77, Panna Lal suffered paralysis, he used to come to see Panna Lal; that Panna Lal lived at Meerut in the house of Smt.Ramrati, plaintiff No. 1; that on the pretext of consulting better doctor, he took Panna Lal to Hapur and while he was not in his senses, he got the will dated 16.10.1975 cancelled by the revocation deed dated 3.2.1977; that Panna Lal died on 15.5.1978 at Subhash Nagar, Meerut and his last rites were performed by the son of plaintiff No. 1, Sanjeev Kumar; that after death of Panna Lal, defendant No. 1, Nand Kishore, started claiming himself to be the owner of the properties left behind by Panna Lal and then plaintiffs came to know from the mutation proceedings that defendant No. 1 has got will dated 16.10.1975 cancelled by the document dated 3.2.1977; that hence the suit was instituted by plaintiff No. 1, arraying plaintiff No. 2 as proforma-defendant, initially, but after the death of plaintiff No. 1, defendant No. 2, the second daughter of the deceased, Panna Lal, got herself transposed as plaintiff No. 2 in the suit; that plaintiffs requested defendant No. 1 to refrain from his illegal deed, but he did not relented; that plaintiffs were in possession over the property left behind their father and hence the suit was instituted.

5. The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying plaint averments to the effect that no partition ever took place between him and his brother Panna Lal and they lived together without any ill will against each other; that Panna Lal lived with him and not with his daughter, plaintiff No. 1 and he cancelled will dated 16.10.1975 in favour of his daughters on 3.2.1977 on his own will in full sense; that Panna Lal was got treated by the defendant No. 1 and his son at Meerut and it is false to allege that he lived with plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant took him on the pretext of treatment at Meerut and got the will revocation deed executed; that the deed was duly executed before the Registrar on 3.2.1977, when Panna Lal was in his full sense and he himself gave application for mutation before consolidation Court; that defendant No. 1 is the only legal heir of Panna Lal and the plai