The validity of a Will is upheld when corroborated by sufficient evidence, regardless of the testator's age or the exclusion of natural heirs.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

This regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017, passed by learned Additional District Judge (II), Mandi, in Civil Appeal No.35/2016, whereby the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi in Civil Suit No.11 of 2008 has been affirmed.

2. The appellant herein was one of the plaintiffs in the original Court and his suit has been dismissed by the original as well as first appellate Court. The other plaintiff was Chuharu son of Jethu, who now finds place in the array of respondents as respondent No.17 as he did not prefer to assail the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court.

3. The parties, hereafter shall be referred by same status as they held before the learned trial Court.

4. The brief factual background of th e case is that the grandfather of the plaintiff, named Jethu was owner of immovable property. Jethu had six sons, namely Hari Singh, Kirpa Ram, Gulab Singh, Dumnu Ram, Chuharu and Mast Ram.

5. The plaintiff is the son of Mast Ram, who had predeceased Jethu.

6. Jethu bequeathed his entire property in favour of his grandsons Dhameshwar and Prem Chand both sons of Hari Singh to the extent of 1/5^th share, Khem Singh and Devinder both sons of Kirpa Ram to the extent of 1/5^th share, Dhananjay and Susheel Kumar both sons of Gulab Singh to the extent of 1/5^th share and to his sons Dumnu Ram and Gulab Singh to the extent of 1/5th share each, by way of Will dated 07.10.1997.

7. The plaintiff and his uncle Chuharu were excluded from inheritance.

8. Jethu died on 25.05.2000. After his death, mutation No.738 was attested in favour of beneficiaries of Will dated 07.10.1997 vide mutation order dated 21.06.2000.

9. The plaintiff and Chuharu filed the suit challenging Will dated 07.10.1997 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) on 01.04.2008. The challenge to the Will was made on following grounds:

(a) That the defendants had managed the Will by manipulation.

(b) The defendants had colluded with the scribe and attesting witnesses of the Will.

(c) The Will did not have consent and knowledge of the testator.

(d) The testator was of old age and feeble health. He was not mentally capable of expressing free mind.

(e) The will was surrounded by suspicious h circumstances such as:

(i) the beneficiary sons of Jethu had actively participated in execution of Will and 

(ii) the plaintiff and Chuharu were H disinherited without there being any reasonable cause.

(f) Jethu was not competent to execute the Will in respect of the suit property as the said property was coparcenary Joint Hindu Family Property.

10. Plaintiff also challenged the sale deeds through which Dhameshwar and Prem Chand both grandsons of Jethu had sold parts of the land inherited by them to third parties for consideration.

11. In the plaint, it was specifically averred that after the death of Jethu, one of his sons, namely, Dumnu had disclosed to the plaintiff that the mutation of inheritance had been attested in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Jethu, including the plaintiff. It was only in the month of Decem ber 2007 that the plaintiff acquired knowledge about the execution of Will by Jethu. As per the plaintiff, he had visited the “Patwarkhana” (office of Patwari) in December 2007 for the purposes of getting his share partitioned and at that juncture the Patwari had disclosed about the factum of Will executed by Jethu.

12. The plaintiff had also contended that thereafter he collected the relevant documents and re