- (1.) The appellants-plaintiffs are aggrieved of the concurrent findings of fact, whereby the suit for declaration challenging the registered Will dated 24.11.1970 executed by Manohori widow of Atma Ram in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 who are sons of Krishan Singh brother of her husband namely Atma Ram, has been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants-plaintiffs submits that as per the pedigree table, both the parties are related to Manohori widow of Atma Ram. The will propounded by the defendants suffers from suspicious circumstances as Manohori had never executed any Will or thumb marked. Both the attesting witnesses namely Maya Ram and Risal Singh had died. A very faint attempt was made by the defendants in complying with the provision of Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act by examining the sons of attesting witnesses namely Balak Ram DW4 and DW5 Teja Singh. Both the aforementioned witnesses have not uttered a single word regarding Will, therefore, Will has not been proved. All these factors have not been noticed by both the Courts below, therefore, property was required to be exceeded by natural succession.
(3.) Per Contra, Mr. Karan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2-defendants submits that DW6 SubRegistrar has been examined who had produced and proved the execution of the Will. In support of the contention, relies upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ved Mitra Verma Vs. Dharam Deo Verma, 2014 15 SCC 578, to contend that where both the attesting witnesses had died and examination of the Sub-Registrar is sufficient for proving the Will, therefore, judgment and decree under challenge are liable to be sustained and thus urges this Court for dismissal of the appeal.;