In a second appeal, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse. A propounder must prove the due execution and valid attestation of a will by at least one witness, failure of which renders the document inadmissible as evidence.

Judgment on Board

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018 passed by the First Additional Judge to the court of First Additional District Judge, Raipur, Civil Appeal No.61-A/2017 whereby the Appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2017 passed by VIth Civil Judge Class-I Raipur in Civil Suit No.76-A/2013 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of trial court has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of parties shown in the Civil Suit are being taken in the present Second Appeal.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit property of House No.MIG-48, situated at Shankar Nagar, Sector-1, Raipur with the pleading that plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 are real brothers. The suit property was acquired in the name of their mother late Deviji Vachhani through registered sale deed dated 23.11.1994 purchased from defendants No.2&3. Late Deviji Vachhani was residing with the plaintiff and while residing with the plaintiff, she died on 23.12.2009. During her lifetime she executed a will in favour of plaintiff with respect to suit property. On 04.09.2010 the plaintiff made an applications for mutation of his name in the revenue records and also in the records of defendants No.2&3 then he came to know that the defendant No.1 has got mutated his name over the suit property by producing a forged sale deed allegedly executed by his mother. The plaintiff incurred expenditure over the suit property in its maintenance as he is residing there since 30 years and his mother has executed a will in his favour therefore he may be declared the title holder of suit property and permanent injunction may be granted in his favour.

4. The defendant No.1 contested the claim of plaintiff; filed his written statement and denied the plaint averment with the pleading that their father Govardhan Das purchased the suit property from defendants No.2&3 in the year 1979 on hire-purchase scheme and during his lifetime he paid the installments. Thereafter, from the pension amount of their mother the installments were paid. After completion of the installments, the transfer deed was registered in the name of their mother late Devi Vachhani on 23.07.1994. All her children were given consent to mutate the name of late Deviji Vachhani over the suit property alone and her name was recorded. He denied that his mother late Deviji Vachhani had executed any will on 22.09.2005 in favour of plaintiff, however, he claimed that in the year, 2004 late Deviji Vachhani was residing at Nagpur along with her two sons. In the year, 2005 she was aged about 83 years and suffering from various ailments and for her treatment, the plaintiff took her to Raipur and got a forged will deed executed in his own name. He would also submit that on 04.12.2004 his mother has executed a will in favour of defendant No.1 at Nagpur and based on which his name was mutated in the revenue records of the suit property. The market value of suit property is about 30-32 Lakhs and suit is not valued properly and thus claimed for dismissal of suit.

5. The defendant No.2&3 also contested the claim of the plaintiff and submitted that the suit property was allotted to Smt. Devi Vachhani under Hire-Purchase scheme and after death of allottee, on the basis of w