D.RAJU, J. - (1.)THE above two appeals may be dealt with together since they arise out of one and the same suit, civil suit No. 87 of 1985 on the file of Senior Sub -Judge, Kullu and the two appeals filed both by the Plaintiffs who lost in part and by the Defendant who also succeeded only to portion of the claim also came to be disposed of by a common judgment. The Plaintiffs are the Appellants in R.S.A. No. 417 of 1992 and the Defendant is the Appellant in R.S. A. No. 420 of 1992. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit properties and in the alternative they have sought for possession of 1/6th share of the disputed land described in the plaint
(2.)THE case of the Plaintiffs is that one Sobhu, father of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant owned the properties in question, that he executed a Will on 15.4.1973 and as a matter of fact, died on
1973. Under the Will, the property has been given to the sons excluding the Defendant, the daughter of late Sobhu. One of the sons, by name, Ruldu also was said to have died on 6.1977 and thereafter, the widow of Ruldu of name Smt. Suari inherited his estate and she was also said to have executed a Will in favour of the Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 on 24.11.197 Aggrieved against the action of the Defendant in managing to get attested the mutation of the shares of heirs of Sobhu including herself, the Plaintiffs have come up with the present suit. It may also be pointed out at this stage that the Plaintiffs appear to have initiated steps to have the Will executed by Sobhu and it appears that the Sub -Registrar concerned before whom the moved was initiated by his proceedings dated 30.5.1984 refused to register the Will and that thereafter the Plaintiffs neither filed any appeal nor pursued further action under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 The Defendant in this suit, the daughter of late Sobhu, the Appellant in Civil Appeal No 68/392 of 1987/262 of 1988 on the file of Additional Distinct Judge. Kullu, the Appellant in R.S.A. No. 420 of 1992 contested the suit claim contending that the suit was barred by limitation, that the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property, that the mutations effected on the basis of inheritance were quite legal and valid and unassailable and also disputed and denied the Will of Sobhu and branded it as a forged document. 3 On the above claims and counter -claims, the suit came to be tried and learned trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 31.3.1987 held that the Will dated 15.4.1973 executed by deceased Sobhu is a valid one and has been duly and properly proved. The learned trial Judge also held that though on the death of Ruldu, one of the sons of late Sobhu, his wife Suari became entitled to the share of Ruldu in the properties, the so -called Will said to have been executed the wife of Ruldu has not been proved for reasons best known to the Plaintiffs and, therefore, the Defendant would be also entitled to succeed as a sharer to the estate of late Ruldu along with his three other brothers. It is on this finding ultimately the learned trial Judge has sustained the claim of the Defendant for 1/16th share. As for the legality and validity of the mutation on the basis of inheritance is concerned, the learned trial Judge rejected the objection taken by the Defendant on the view that those mutations were got effected behind the back of the Plaintiffs and in a perfunctory manner showing the presence of a dead person long even after the death of Ruldu. As for the claim of the Defendant about the unreasonableness of the Will and the challenge made to it as one vitiated with suspicious circumstances, learned trial Judge elaborately adverted to the oral and documentary evidence, to come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong in the disposition made under the Will excluding the Defendant for the reason that she was got married in a well to do family where she is supposed to be still living particularly in the teeth of the fact that she was given certain property to which a reference will be made hereinafter at an appropriate stage. On the above conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge, the suit filed by the Plaintiff came to be decreed partly except to the extent of 1/16th share recognised in favour of the Defendant. It is in such circumstances aggrieved by the judgments of the courts below, both the parties to the suit filed separate appeals objecting to the respective portions of the judgments and decrees which went against them.

(3.)LEARNED Appellate Judge, who heard and disposed of the appeals C.A. No. 66/245/87/261/1988 filed by the Plaintiffs and C.A. No. 68/392/87/262/1988 confirmed the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Judge and dismissed both the appeals. Hence, the above second appeals.