Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

By way of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 11.1.2012, rendered by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Rudrapur in Civil Suit No. 82/2010, Rajiv Jain & Another v. Bhupendra Singh, has been challenged. The suit was decreed and the defendant Bhupendra Singh was injuncted not to interfere in the peaceful possession/occupation nay the construction work on the property in question. In addition to, the unregistered Will dated 8.11.1991, which was being made the basis by the defendant claiming his ownership over the land, was also declared as void and inoperative. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant Bhupendra Singh is before this Court.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, brief facts, which are the extracts of the pleadings of the parties in the suit, are being reproduced as below.

3. The land bears the no. 160/1, area 1 bigha 13 bishwa situated in Village Bilhairi, town Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The boundaries of the land have been indicated at the end of the plaint. It was ad measuring 96 ft. width east west x 120 ft. length north south. It was the part of a big land and purchased way back on 7.12.1967 by Smt. Kamla Jain, W/o Satish Chandra Jain for the consideration of Rs. 2,000/-, as is adverted from the original sale deed available on the lower court record. Smt. Kamla Jain was the mother of the plaintiffs/respondents and thus Satish Chandra Jain was their real father. After a considerable lapse of almost 22 years, a petrol pump was installed on the land, in question, inter alia for doing certain other business of the petroleum products under the name and style of M/s Hira Lal Jain and Company (Khatima, Nainital) on dated 22.9.1989 under the deed of partnership between Sudhir Chandra Jain, S/o Heeralal Jain, who was none other but the real uncle of the defendant and since the land, in question, where the petrol pump had to be installed was in the ownership of Smt. Kamla Jain, so she was the second party and it was covenanted that net profit or loss of this establishment will be distributed as follows. 50 paise in a rupee to Sudhir Chand Jain, 25 paise in a rupee to Rajiv Jain and 25 paise in a rupee to Sanjiv Jain. Bhupendra Singh, the defendant appellant, was the Manager of that petrol pump to look the day-to-day affairs of this establishment.

4. There is no dispute that Smt. Kamla Jain died on 17.11.1991, and Satish Chandra Jain, the husband of Smt. Kamla Jain, died on 20.5.2002. The differences erupted in the family, particularly between Sudhir Chandra Jain (the real uncle of the plaintiffs) on the one hand and brother duo Rajiv Jain and Sanjiv Jain on the other. Petrol pump and the business of this petroleum products establishment also came to an end sometime in the later half of the first decade of 2010 due to sundry irregularities and the petroleum company rooted out its machine and infrastructure from the spot.

5. In the above background, Bhupendra Singh, the Manager of the petrol pump, claimed his ownership over the land in question on the basis of unregistered Will dated 8.11.1991 allegedly executed by Smt. Kamla Jain in his favour and got his name mutated in the concerned revenue records by way of launching appropriate proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. Although the plaintiffs interfered in those proceedings, but later on they did not appear and got an appropriate advice to file the injunction suit no. 82 of 2010 before the Civil Judge seeking declaration of the alleged Will as null and void as also the injunction against Bhupendra Singh, as stated above. This suit was decreed, whereagainst this appeal has been filed.

6. Since this is the first appeal, hence it is not confined only to the substantive question of law nor any such question was formulated ever by the Court. So, this Court would like to deal all the issues framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties by the Court below as well as appreciati