VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
(2.) The plaintiffs have concurrently failed before the two Courts below in a suit for declaration. They claimed that the earlier Will dated February 24, 1982 executed by Ram Devi, their grand-mother stood superseded by a subsequent Will dated January 9, 1989 in favour of the plaintiffs. Ram Devi was owner to the extent of 1/10th share in the total land and earlier she had executed a Will dated February 24,1982 in favour of defendants No.1 to 6. However, subsequently, Ram Devi came to live with the plaintiffs and executed an unregistered Will dated January 1, 1989 in favour of the plaintiffs. Earlier Will stands cancelled. Plaintiffs wanted to get the same registered but this was objected to by the defendants.
(3.) The defendants contested the suit. They claimed that no such Will, as had been set up by the plaintiffs, had ever been executed by Ram Devi on January 1,1989. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid Will was a result of fraud. They reasserted the validity of the registered Will dated February 24, 1982 in their favour executed by Ram Devi. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the Will set up by the plaintiff was not proved and was in fact surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. It has also been held that the Will dated January 9, 1989 set up by the plaintiff was an unregistered Will and was shown to be typed but there was a blank space in which the name of the scribe was to be written but had been not so written. No such scribe/ typist was ever produced in evidence. It was also noticed that earlier Will was registered but subsequent Will was not registered. Noticing a number of suspicious circumstances, both the Courts below rejected the Will dated January 9, 1989 and upheld the Will dated February 24, 1982.;