ORDER

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2020 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Waidhan, District-Singrauli in RCA No.25/2019, whereby the said appeal was dismissed and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2018 passed by the IInd Additional Judge to the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Waidhan, District-Singrauli in Civil Suit No.16A/2013.

2. The appellants have suffered the concurrent findings on facts and laws of the learned trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The brief facts of this case are as follows. The land was originally owned by one Manohar Teli. He had five daughters. They are Fulva, who was plaintiff no.1, Rajmanti, who was plaintiff no.2, Kemlapati who was defendant no.1 and the respondent no.1 herein, Budhani, who was defendant no.2 and the respondent no.2 herein and Sumari who was defendant no.3 and the respondent no.3 herein. Manohar Teli had 4.041 hectares of land in village Gahilgarh bearing survey no.2/2, 141, 142, 143, 348/2, 351, 350 and 405 in village Gahilgarh West. After the death of Manohar Teli his wife, being the mother of the contesting parties, continued to cultivate the land. After some time, she too died and thereafter the plaintiffs and the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 started cultivating the property jointly, such is the case of the plaintiffs.

3. The cultivation was being done by taking a share of 1/5th of each daughter.

It is further the case of the plaintiffs that as each of them were staying in the respective in-laws house and defendant no.1/respondent no.1 herein Kemlapati was residing on the said suit property, she was carrying out the cultivation on the said land and when the plaintiffs asked for their respective shares of the agricultural produce, the respondent no.1 is stated to have informed them that in the revenue record her name has been mutated and therefore, she refused to give plaintiffs’ share in the agricultural produce from the said property. In order to protect their rights, the appellants herein filed the aforementioned civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and possession. The respondent no.1 was claiming her right on the said property pursuant to a Will dated 05.07.1981 executed by Manohar Teli in favour of only the respondent no.1 Kemlapati. The testator Manohar Teli died on 28.10.1981 more than three months after executing the Will. The said Will, according to the plaintiffs/appellants herein, is a fabricated Will. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court believed the Will to be genuine and thereafter dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellants and the First Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1925”). Section 63 of the Act of 1925 lays down the mandatory requisites of a Will. As per section 63 of the Act of 1925, the Will was required to be signed by the testator or his mark affixed. The signature or the mark of the testator shall be so placed on the instrument that it appears it was intended thereby the testator to give effect to writing as a Will and lastly the Will had to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court which shall be referred to hereinafter laying down the facts relating to the disputed Will.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of DW-2 and DW-3, who are the witnesses for the defendants and also the alleged attesting witness of the Will. Specific reference has been made to paragraph-7 of DW-2 Ram Vichare, wherein he has stated that it is correct to suggest that the suit p