( 1. ) THE defendants, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff/respondent No. 1, has been set aside, has preferred this second appeal.

( 2. ) IN brief, the suit of plaintiff is that she is the daughter of Kaushalya Bai wd/o Udaybhan. According to plaint averments, Kaushalya Bai was the owner of the suit property, the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff being her daughter, after the death of Kaushalya Bai inherited the right, title and interest in the suit property. It has also been pleaded in Paras 7, 8 and 11 of the plaint that a forged and fictitious Will has been prepared by the defendants and by that forged and fictitious Will of Kaushalya Bai, no right, title and interest are devolved in them. The plaintiff further pleaded that the alleged Will dated 26-2-1978 alleged to have been executed by Kaushalya Bai in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 be declared as null and void. In the plaint, the State of Madhya Pradesh has been arrayed as a formal party. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 20-12-1979.

( 3. ) THE defendants, who arc appellants in this appeal, refuted the plaint averments in regard to the non-execution of the Will. However, this fact is not disputed by them that the plaintiff is the only daughter of Kaushalya Bai. According to the defendants, Kaushalya Bai executed the Will dated 26-2-1978 in their favour and hence they have become owner of the suit property by virtue of the said Will. In this manner, they have prayed that the suit be dismissed.

( 4. ) THE Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, found the Will to be proved and eventually dismissed the suit of plaintiff.

( 5. ) THE plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, filed first appeal before learned First Appellate Court, which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court and the suit of plaintiff has been decreed. In this manner, this second appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

( 6. ) THIS Court on 4-8-1993 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law: Whether the finding regarding the Will being a forged and fabricated document arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court is perverse ?

( 7. ) SHRI Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has submitted before me that the Trial Court by minutely paying heed to the testimony of each witness as well as the document of the Will came to hold that the Will is duly proved and the same is not forged as pleaded by the plaintiff and, therefore, the First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in holding the Will to be forged. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on D. R. Krishnaswamy v. Wesleyan Methodist Mission Trust Association and Ors. AIR1980 SC 1658 , (1980 )1 SCC454 , 1980 (12 )UJ129 (SC ), Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs.) (Nee Vas) v. Verma Marie Vas (Ms) and Ors. 1996 III AD (SC )737 , 1996 (2 )CTC315 , JT1996 (4 )SC 333 , 1996 (3 ) SCALE596 , (1996 )9 SCC324 , [1996 ]supp1 SCR268. Learned Sr. Counsel has also placed reliance an Anr. decision of the Supreme Court, Misri Lal (dead) by L. Rs. and Anr. v. Smt. Daulati Devi and Anr. AIR1997 SC 3819 , JT1997 (7 )SC 132 , RLW1997 (3 )SC 382 , 1997 (5 )SCALE294 , (1997 )7 SCC133. By placing reliance on S. V. R. Mudaliar (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. v. Mrs. Jajabu F. Buhari (dead) by L. Rs. and Ors. AIR1995 SC 1607 , JT1995 (3 )SC 614 , 1995 (2 )SCALE720 , (1995 )4 SCC15 , [1995 ]3 SCR312 , it has been argued that in case the judgment is of reversal, the Appellate Court is bound to assign cogent reasons differing from the view given by the Trial Court. According to learned Counsel, since this has not been done, the judgment of learned First Appellate Court