1. This second appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff against the judgment of reversal. The trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal the same has been reversed.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration of bhumiswami right and injunction has been filed by the plantiff in respect of certain agricultural lands, the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint and which is the subject-matter of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was owned by one Chunnilal and having bequeathed the same by will dated 19.3.1961 in favour of plaintiff, after his death he became bhumiswami of the suit property and eventualy he submitted an application for his mutation in the revenue record which was ordered to be mutated. According to the plaintiff he is possessing the suit property as bhumiswami and further because defendants 1 and 2 are trying to interfere in his possession hence, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by him on 21.6.1983.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the plaint averments by filing a joint written statement and also filed counter claim praying to declare them as bhumiswami of the suit property on account of adverse possesssion and further the order of mutation dated 9.7.1982 be set-aside.

4. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit.

5. The First Appeal which was filed by defendants has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. In this manner this second appeal has been filed by plaintiff.

6. This Court on 10.8.1998 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. “Whether the finding of the first appellate Court below regarding Will is perverse being contrary to the evidence on record? and

2. “Whether the appellate Court below erred in law in decreeing counter claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the basis of adverse possession when as per their own showing they were in possession of the suit property in pursuance of an agreement of sale?

7. The contention of Shri O.P. Solanki learned counsel for the appellant is that having admitted the photocopy of the will in evidence by learned trial Court, the learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in holding that Will is not proved. According to learned counsel the copy of the Will Ex. P/1 is dated 19.3.1961 and is a 30 year old document, and, therefore, under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act it shall be presumed that not only it was executed but the same was also duly attested, therefore, it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to get the attesting witnesses examined to prove the execution and the attestation of the Will.

8. By addressing substantial question of law No. 2 it has been contended by learned counsel for appellant that defendants have not perfected their bhumiswami right by adverse possession for two reasons, firstly there is no proper pleadings of defendants in that regard in their counter claim and secondly the plea has not been proved by placing cogent evidence on record. On these premised submissions it has been put forth by learned counsel for the appellant that this appeal be allowed and by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court judgment and decree passed by learned Trial Court be restored.

9. Combating the aforesaid submissions put forth by learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Shastri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that cogent reasons have been assigned by learned First Appellate Court holding that the Will is not proved and further defendants have perfected their title on the suit property by adverse possession.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Regarding substantial question of law No. 1.

11. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that b