Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-5-1991 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. (2-A/78) 41-A/91, whereby suit of plaintiffs has been dismissed.

It is undisputed that Gajadhar Prasad Lodhi died on 30-10-1976. It is also undisputed that after the death of Gajadhar Prasad, name of plaintiff No. 4-Parwatibai and Jamunabai was inutated in the Revenue Record as successors of deceased-Gajadhar Prasad. Appellant/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, which was dismissed on 13-6-78. It is also undisputed that Parwatibai was died during the pendency of the suit and name of appellants Kamlesh and Rajesh s/o Prahlad Singh was substituted as her successors.

3. Suit of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that Gajadhar Prasad was issueless. He executed a Will of movable and immovable property on 20-5-1974 in favour of appellants and Parwatibai (since deceased). It is further pleaded that appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of agriculture land mentioned in plaint in Para 2 and residential house at Beldhana. It is further pleaded that appellants filed a mutation proceeding under Section 110 of the MPLRC, 1959, before the Naib Tehsildar, Deori. Respondent Jamunabai objected aforesaid proceeding and claiming herself as successor of Gajadhar Prasad. As mentioned in the admitted fact, Tehsildar had passed the order dated 31-10-1977 in favour of the plaintiff Parwatibai and respondent-Jamunabai. It is further pleaded that Naib Tehsildar dismissed the claim of appellant/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 based on Will. They assailed the order in appeal, but the same was also dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rehli on 13-6-1978. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent.

4. Respondent/defendant denied the pleading of appellants and pleaded that being a daughter of Gajadhar, she is the sole successor of him. She further pleaded that at the time of execution of alleged Will on 20-5-1974, Gajadhar Prasad was not physically and mentally sound. She further pleaded that plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property, however, they are trying to forcibly dispossess her. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, she prays for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned Additional District Judge framed as many as 8 issues and after appraisal of evidence on record, Trial Court dismissed the suit of appellants/plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that respondent-Jamunabai was in the womb of her mother when she came to house of deceased Gajadhar Prasad, therefore, Trial Court committed error in holding that Jamunabai was the daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. He further submitted that Trial Court committed illegality in recording the finding that execution of Will is not proved. He further contended that Will was duly proved, therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported and justified the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. He further submitted that there is no pleading in the plaint that Jamunabai was not the daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. He further submitted that burden of proving the fact that Gajadhar Prasad was physically and mentally sound at the time of execution of the alleged Will, was on appellants and same was not discharged, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record.

9. Parwatibai (P.W. 1) deposed that she lived with Gajadhar Prasad as his wife. Ga