1. This is defendants' second appeal against the impugned judgment dated 5.9.2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Guna, in Civil Appeal No.14-A/1995, whereby the learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. No exhaustive statement of facts are required to be narrated for the disposal of this second appeal, suffice it to say that Gangaram and Mohansingh are the plaintiffs and are the sons of Horal Singh. The plaintiffs in para 3 of the plaint have pleaded that the suit property was owned by one Baldev Singh, who had died on 19.2.1973. On 11.2.1973 Baldev Singh executed a Will in favour of plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh by bequeathing his entire share in the disputed property. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh is the nephew of Baldev Singh. According to the plaintiffs, by executing the Will, Baldev Singh bequeathed the said property in favour of Mohan Singh. A probate proceeding is also pending in the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna, in Case No.1/1975. In the suit property, Baldev Singh was having 1/3rd share and after the death of Baldev Singh, plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh became owner of the share left by Baldev Singh by virtue of the Will.

3. The execution of the Will has been denied by the defendants in their written statement. Further, they have pleaded that the probate case has also been dismissed. In the written statement only the execution of the Will has been denied, but the defendants did not plead that the Will is suspicious for certain reasons. There is no pleading of the defendants that Will was executed by playing fraud, or it is a fictitious document. It has also not been pleaded that the testator was not in fit mental condition to execute the Will or any kind of undue influence etc. was made upon the testator. The pleading of defendants is completely silent in respect to what are the suspicious circumstances so as to hold that Will is not a valid Will.

4. Since only the execution of Will was denied without any pleading that the Will is suspicious for certain reasons, the learned trial Court framed issue No.2 only in respect of the execution of the Will and no issue was rightly framed in respect of alleged suspicious circumstances. The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence, came to hold that Will is suspicious and eventually dismissed the suit. The appeal, which was filed by the plaintiffs before the learned first appellate Court, has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit has been decreed. The learned first appellate Court held that the Will has been duly executed in favour of plaintiff No.2 Mohan Singh.

5. In this manner, this second appeal has been filed by the defendants before this Court.

6. This Court on 22.3.2004 admitted the second appeal only on the following substantial question of law:

"1. Whether the first appellate Court has erred in holding that the Will EX.P-1 is a genuine document without considering the suspicious circumstances on record?"

7. The contention of Shri Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, is that although learned first appellate Court has found the execution of the Will to be proved, but since the plaintiffs have failed to remove suspicious circumstance in execution of the Will (Ex.P-1), therefore, learned first appellate Court has erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others [AIR 1959 SC 443, para 18].

8. On the other hand, Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that since there is no pleading of the defendants that how and in what manner the Will is suspicious, therefore, what suspicious