JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member - This appeal has been filed under Section 331 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad dated 11.1.1990, dismissing the appeal No. 92 of 1988-89 confirming the decree and judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nazibabad, district Bijnor dated 8.7.1985. 2. The, brief facts of the case are that Salekhu son of Sumre was the admitted bhumidhar of the suit plot. He died in August 1981 leaving behind his two married daughters. Smt. Gomi Devi and Smt. Somi Devi. The appellant Behari is his brother. The mutation proceedings were contested between them. Smt. Somi and Gomi claimed on the basis of the Will alleged to be executed by Salekhu in their favour. Behari contested the mutation on the ground that no such Will was executed and he is heir as real brother of deceased and entitled to inherit as a heir. The mutation was throughout decided in his favour. Then Smt. Somi and Gomi filed the suit in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nazibabad, District Bijnor for declaration of their title on the basis of Will. The trial court found the Will genuine and decreed the suit. An appeal was filed against that judgment of the trial court. It has been dismissed by the first appellate court. Against this judgment of the first appellate court this second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that all the mutation proceedings are not binding on the trial court in the regular suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 it has come effect and consequences. His contention was that the trial court have not considered properly about the execution of Will. There are two Wills alleged to have been executed. His Will is alleged to have been executed on 16.7.81. This deed was written on the stamped papers of Rs. 5/-. It was in favour of daughters respondent's brother appellant and sons of pre-deceased brother. The second Will deed is dated 20.1.1981. Both the courts below have considered this Will to be genuine. The learned counsel argued that as many as 27 witnesses have signed on this Will. This deed was written on the stamped papers of Rs. 5/-. It was in favour of daughters respondent's brother appellant and sons of pre-deceased brother. The second Will deed is dated 20.1.1981. Both the courts below have considered this Will to be genuine. The learned counsel argued that as many as 27 witnesses have signed on this Will. He also pointed out that the scribe of the Will have stated in mutation proceeding that he wrote the Will on the dictation of somebody else. He also argued that Will is for all the properties. No plots are mentioned in the Will. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that husband of the plaintiffs have purchased some of the disputed plots from the appellant and the sale-deed is on the field, therefore, it will operate as estoppel and acquiescence in view of the transaction in favour of their husband. He also argued that since the property was sold to the husband of the respondents during the pendency of the suit they ought to have husband of the respondents during the pendency of the suit they ought to have been impleaded as party. The suit has been defective on account of non-impleadment of the parties. The learned Addl. Commissioner has not considered these aspects of the later development. 6. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties argued that these daughters living with their deceased father in a separate house. In these circumstances there was inclination of the executor of the Will in their favour from very beginning. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the house of the executor of the Will and that of his brother Bihari appellant are two separate houses. The executor of the Will deed Salekhu was living in his house and his daughter used to look after him and manage the properties of the executor of the Will. He also contended that in the Will-deed if there are more witnesses it will not take away the validity of the Will and its genuineness. He also contended that rather than it will prove the genuineness of the Will-deed. 7. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding about the genuineness of the Will-deed in favour of the respondents. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to prove a different conclusion only on account of the fact that there are many witnesses on the Will-deed. 7. Both the courts below have given a concurrent finding about the genuineness of the Will-deed in favour of the respondents. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to prove a different conclusion only on account of the fact that there are many witnesses on the Will-deed. The sale-deed executed by appellant Bihari in favour of husband of the respondents shows that no consideration has passed. When the issue was referred to the trial court the statement of Bihari was again recorded on that issue. Bihari categorically stated that no amount of money have been received by him. Therefore, the transaction is without consideration, therefore it cannot operate as res-judicata. 8. In the Will-deed all the properties has been included to have been willed in favour of respondents. Non-mention of plots will not take away the genuineness of the Will. The learned Addl. Commissioner has also considered the effect of the sale-deed written by appellant Bihari in favour of their husband. His conclusion is that the conduct of the husband of the respondent will not bind them. Therefore, he has not accepted the finding recorded by the trial court on additional issues subsequently. In these circumstances I do not find any force in this appeal. 9. The scribe of the Will-deed was examined in the trial court. His previous statement was not shown to him and the witnesses was not examined on that point how he was stated that fact in that proceeding, because he has not given that statement when he was examined in this suit. Therefore, there is no much force on the contention of the learned counsel that the scribe have given a slightly different version when he was examined as witness in the mutation proceeding and that he gave a different person in this suit. The witnesses of the appellant have stated that Bihari is in possession over the disputed plot. None of the witnesses including the appellant Bihari stated that he is not in possession regarding the plot which he had sold to the husband of the respondents.' Thus their statement is just like a mechanical narration of the fact of possession that the suit plots are in possession of the appellant. If the transaction was true then at least the executor should have excluded that plot in his statement while asserting his possession. If the transaction was true then at least the executor should have excluded that plot in his statement while asserting his possession. It is only a later creation of the circumstances to prove his claim is better founded than that of the respondent. In these circumstances there is no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. Since the sale transaction was just a paper transaction, therefore, there was no necessity to implead the husband of the respondent as a party in the proceeding. The suit thus was not bad for non-impleadment of the party. No such plea was also taken in the trial court. I, therefore, do not find any force in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.