The burden of proving the due execution and attestation of a Will rests solely on the propounder. A registered Will does not raise a conclusive presumption of validity, and the propounder must dispel all suspicious circumstances to rely upon it.

1. The defendant No. 1/ appellant, has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity CPC) against the judgment & decree dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Balod, C.G. in Civil Appeal No. 17A/2021 (Amritlal Vs. Smt. Nihoti Bai & Ors.) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2021 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 42A/2016 (Smt. Nihoti Bai & Ors Vs. Amritlal.) whereby the learned trial Judge has allowed the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

2. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of title, partition, separate possession of their share, and a declaration that the registered Will dated 22.10.2009 allegedly executed in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, void and inoperative pleading inter alia that the plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) and defendant Nos.1 & 3 (appellant and respondent No. 4 herein) are members of the same family and are the children/legal heirs of late Bhuvanlal Devangan, while defendant No.2 is his widow. Late Bhuvanlal was owner and in possession of agricultural lands situated at Village Lasotola, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Balod, comprising 9 khasra numbers admeasuring 2.490 hectares, and at Village Basin comprising 5 khasra numbers admeasuring 1.490 hectares. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were ancestral properties inherited by Bhuvanlal from his forefathers/father, and no partition had ever taken place amongst the family members. It was further pleaded that Bhuvanlal died on 20.12.2014 and, for about six years prior to his death, he was old, seriously ill, physically weak and mentally unsound, having lost his capacity to understand matters properly, with weak eyesight and impaired hearing. Taking undue advantage of his physical and mental condition, defendant No.1 Amritlal, in collusion with others, allegedly got a registered Will dated 22.10.2009 executed in his favour in respect of the movable and immovable properties of Bhuvanlal, with the intention of depriving the plaintiffs of their lawful share. The plaintiffs further pleaded that on the basis of the said Will, defendant No.1 got his name mutated in the revenue records without impleading or issuing notice to the plaintiffs. On gaining knowledge thereof, the plaintiffs preferred a revenue appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gunderdehi, which came to be dismissed by order dated 31.08.2016. Thereafter, as cloud had been cast over their rights, the plaintiffs filed the present civil suit contending that no valid Will was ever executed by Bhuvanlal in favour of defendant No.1 and that after the death of Bhuvanlal, the plaintiffs, along with defendant Nos.1 to 3, succeeded to the suit properties by inheritance and were entitled to equal share therein.

3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, in their written statement, admitted the relationship between the parties and pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 & 3 are the children of late Bhuvanlal, while defendant No.2 is his widow. It was contended that the lands situated at Village Basin were purchased by Bhuvanlal from his own earnings and constituted his self-acquired property. It was further pleaded that the land situated at Village Lasotola bearing Khasra No.644 admeasuring 0.08 hectare was also purchased by Bhuvanlal from one Bhagtaram, while the remaining lands had fallen to his share in partition amongst his brothers. The defendants further asserted that late Bhuvanlal, o