JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.—The present appellants, who happened to be the sons of one Mast Ram filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land and as a consequential relief permanent prohibitory injunction was asked for. The facts, as borne out from the records, revealed that one Mast Ram was the previous owner in possession of the suit land as described in the plaint who was the father of the plaintiffs. According to them on 21st May, 1973, this Mast Ram executed a registered Will of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 3, Smt. Munni Devi, his wife, with a stipulation that she would enjoy the same during her life time and on her death the said land would be inherited by the present plaintiffs in equal shares. Their further case has been that on the death of Mast Ram mutation was sanctioned by the revenue officer in favour of Smt. Munni Devi on 17th November, 1973. Earlier this Mast Ram on 18th August, 1971, had filed a suit against the present plaintiffs in respect of a part of the suit land which was dismissed on 25-6-1973 as abated. The plaintiffs further case, as pleaded, has been that Mast Ram deceased never remained in possession of the suit land during his life time nor thereafter Smt. Munni Devi came to occupy the suit land on the basis of the Will also. The plaintiffs pleaded that they remained as owners in possession of the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, the entry in the name of Smt. Munni Devi in possession of the suit land in the revenue record was a paper entry made on the basis of the Will and was a false and wrong. It was also pleaded by the plaintiffs that on the basis of these wrong entries Smt. Munni transferred the entire suit land in favour of defendants No, I and 2 through a registered Will dated 29th May, 1975. It was also averred that Muani Devi filed a suit against the plaintiffs for possession of a part of the suit land and that suit was dismissed in default but during the pendency of that suit he transferred the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, as referred to above. It was also averred that Muani Devi filed a suit against the plaintiffs for possession of a part of the suit land and that suit was dismissed in default but during the pendency of that suit he transferred the suit land in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, as referred to above. The plaintiffs have assailed the sale in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 to be illegal, void and inoperative against their rights. The plaintiffs pleaded that Smt Munni Devi had not succeeded to the suit property left by Mast Ram and even otherwise she was not the legally wedded wife of Mast Ram. The plaintiffs, as such, claimed to have become owners in possession of the suit land. As the defendants were trying to take forcible possession of the suit land, hence the suit. 2. The defendants contested the suit. They raised various preliminary objections. It was denied that Mast Ram was not in possession of the suit land during his life time, It was also pleaded that Mast Ram did not create a life interest in favour of Munni Devi in the alleged Will but on the basis of the said Will Munni Devi has become absolute owner. The other averments made in the plaint were, however, not admitted. The parties were put to trial on the following Issues by the trial Court: 1. Whether the plaint is not verified in accordance with Order 6, Rule 15, C. P. C. If not, what is its effect ? OPDs 2. Whether the plaint is properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. If not, what is its correct valuation ? OP Parties 3. Whether the suit is within time ? OPP 4. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable, as alleged ? OPD 5. Whether the present suit requires to be stayed under section 10, C. P C, as alleged ? OPDs 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action, as alleged ? OPDs 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their conduct and deeds, as alleged ? OPDs 8. Whether the plaint is not drafted in accordance with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 1, C. P. C. If not what is its effect ? OPDS 9. OPDs 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their conduct and deeds, as alleged ? OPDs 8. Whether the plaint is not drafted in accordance with the provisions of Order 7, Rule 1, C. P. C. If not what is its effect ? OPDS 9. Whether the deceased Shri Mast Ram executed the Will of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 3 till her life time only, as alleged in para No. 2 of the plaint ? OPPs 10. Whether during the life rime of deceased Shri Mast Ram, the plaintiffs were in physical possession of the land in suit ? If so, its effect ? OPPs 11. Whether defendant No. 3 never came into possession of the suit land after the death of Shri Mast Ram pursuant to the Will in suit as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPPs 12. Whether the sale deed No. 54 registered on 29-5-1975 is illegal, wrong, void and inoperative, as alleged in para No. 9 of the plaint ? OPPs 13. Whether the plaintiffs are exclusively holding and occupying the land in suit for the last more than 14 years, as alleged ? If so, its effect ? OPPs 14. Relief, 3. Issues No. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, according to the trial Court, were not pressed by the learned Counsel for the defendants during the course of arguments and, as such, those were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, Issue No, 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff, Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No, 9 was decided in the negative. Issues No. 10, 11 and 13 were disposed of in favour of the defendants while under Issue No. 12 it was held that the sale deed was legal and valid. The trial Court, as such, dismissed the suit. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were assailed in an appeal before the first appellate Court on various pleas. The first appellate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal with costs. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been assailed in the present regular second appeal on various grounds. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinized minutely. 4. The first appellate Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal with costs. The aforesaid judgment and decree have been assailed in the present regular second appeal on various grounds. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinized minutely. 4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has urged and submitted the following points, requiring determination by this Court: 1. No doubt, the Will executed by Mast Ram in favour of Munni Devi was to make her absolute owner of the property in dispute but at the time of registration, the Will was modified and a life interest, after the death of the testator was created in favour of Munni Devi. 2. Even on the basis of the evidence examined the plaintiffs have proved themselves to have acquired title by way of adverse possession. 3. In case the above submissions do not find favour, it has been proved on record that the plaintiffs ware in possession and, therefore, at least a decree for perpetual prohibitory injunction could have been granted in their favour and against the defendants. There is no dispute to the proposition that the essential characteristics of a Will are: 1. There must be a legal declaration ; 2. That declaration must be with respect to the property of the testator ; and 3. The declaration must be to the effect that it is to operate after the death of the testator, that is, it should be revocable during 5. There is again no dispute to the proposition that the Will shall 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 or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person ; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Apart from this, the testator is also to sign or affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in the presence of testator and by his direction. Apart from this, the testator is also to sign or affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in the presence of testator and by his direction. These are the mandatory provisions required to be complied with under section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 6. Again it is not being disputed that a testator has got every right to revoke or alter the will executed by him at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property by Will In case the testator selects to behave in that manner the later Will, in case executed in accordance with the provisions of law, shall have precedence over the earlier Will which shall automatically stand cancelled. At this stage section 2 (b) of the Indian Succession Act, which defines ‘codicil, can safely be referred, which runs as under : "2 (b) codicil means an instrument made in relation to a will, and explaining, altering or adding to its dispositions, and shall be deemed to form part of the will." 7. Generally the same principles are applied by courts in construing a codicil as in the case of a Will. The effect of confirming a will by a codicil is to bring the will down to the date of codicil and to effect the same disposition of the testators property as would have been if the testator had as the date of the codicil made a new will containing the same disposition as the original will had with the alterations introduced by the codicil. Its effect is republication of the will and to make a devise in the will operative in the same way in which it would have been operative if the words were contained in the codicil. Thus, a codicil duly executed gives effect and operation to unattested alteration in a will. A defective bequest in a will may stand cured by a codicil. 8. Thus, a codicil which substitutes the earlier Will has to be proved in the same manner as is the mandatory requirement for proving the Will. 9. Thus, a codicil duly executed gives effect and operation to unattested alteration in a will. A defective bequest in a will may stand cured by a codicil. 8. Thus, a codicil which substitutes the earlier Will has to be proved in the same manner as is the mandatory requirement for proving the Will. 9. In the present case it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that, no doubt, on the basis of the original Will Smt. Munni Devi would have become absolute owner of the suit property but because of the codicil the earlier Will giving her absolute ownership in the suit property was altered into a limited ownership In this behalf the endorsement of the Will made by the Registrar is being referred as codicil. In order to appreciate the aforesaid proposition the wordings of the endorsement have to be taken note of The actual wordings of the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar is in Hindi, its correct translation is given as under : "The subject of the Will was read over to Shri Mast Ram which was admitted to be correct by him but he further stated that the land during the life time of Munni Devi would be owned by her and during her life time Bhagat Ram and Chhaju Ram would look-after her and after her death this land would go to Bhagat Ram and Chhaju Ram in equal shares and uptil that time they will have no right or title on this land The testator was identified by Shri Ram Datt, resident of Nehnar," Sd/- Sd/- Mast Ram Vijay Singh Negi, Sd/- Sub-Registrar, Ram Datt Jubbal 21-5-1973" 10. On the basis of the aforesaid endorsement it is argued that this endorsement amounts to codicil as this endorsement has altered the earlier Will giving absolute ownership of the suit property in favour of Munni Devi defendant, 11. As referred to above this endorsement, being termed as codicil, requires the same proof as is required, under the law, for proving the execution of a valid Will. As referred to above this endorsement, being termed as codicil, requires the same proof as is required, under the law, for proving the execution of a valid Will. It has been contended that Ram Datt and Vijay Singh Negi, Sub-Registrar, can safely be termed as two attesting witnesses as this endorsement has been signed by these two persons as also by the testator, I think such an inference is most uncalled for in the circumstances of the present case Ram Datt who has signed this endorsement was only a witness who had identified the testator He has nowhere stated in the endorsement that the testator had willed away the property in the manner referred to in the endorsement. He was simply a witness to identify the testator He could not be used and termed as an attesting witness of the codicil. Even if for arguments sake the Sub Registrar can take the place of one of the attesting witnesses, in the absence of other attesting witness this endorsement will not, in any way, be legally termed as a codicil. In this view of the matter the reference of the suit property having been given for the life time of Munni Devi will not carry any legal weight and will not in any way create such a right in the lady. 12. Thus, the two courts below have come to a correct conclusion in this behalf. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants has tried to take some advantage from the case of Makhan Mal L Ram Ditta Mal and others v. Mst. Pritam Devi and others, AIR 1961 Punj 411, wherein it has been held that the registration officer can be regarded as an attesting witness if the execution is admitted before him. The facts of the reported case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case the original Will before the endorsement of the Sub Registrar is not being disputed which had given full ownership in favour of Munni Devi. The endorsement of the Sub-Registrar is being interpreted as a codicil which could not be done so except as already discussed 14. Pt. In the present case the original Will before the endorsement of the Sub Registrar is not being disputed which had given full ownership in favour of Munni Devi. The endorsement of the Sub-Registrar is being interpreted as a codicil which could not be done so except as already discussed 14. Pt. Parshotam Ram v L Kesho Das and another, AIR (32) 1945 Lahore 3, has also been referred This reported case again will not be helpful to the case of the present appellants It has been held in this reported case that attesting witnesses can sign any time before the Will comes into operation. There is no dispute to this proposition, In the present case the point in issue is altogether distinct. 15. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances reflected from the records itself the testator did not execute any writing attested by two witnesses revoking or modifying the Will. That being so, the findings of the two courts below in the aforesaid background do not require any interference whatsoever. 16. The appellants have contended that they have acquired title by way of adverse possession and in this behalf the main stress has been with regard to the litigation between the parties whereby Smt Munni Devi and prior to her Shri Mast Ram had filed a suit for possession against the plaintiffs for a part of the suit land. Needless to say, Shri Mast Ram deceased, as per the case of the plaintiffs, had filed suit for possession in the year 1971. The present suit was filed in the year 1976. Even from this date of 1971 the adverse possession cannot be said to have matured into ownership, being not more than twelve years old. At this stage the statement of PW 1 Shri Chhaju Ram has been referred who stated on oath that earlier his grand-father Tota Ram was the owner of the suit land who had transferred the said land in favour of the plaintiffs by way of gift deed as their grand-father was not having good terms with their father Mast Ram. He further added that his father Mast Ram filed a civil suit for his share and in that suit l/3rd share in the ownership was given to his father Mast Ram. The witness further added that the possession remained with the plaintiffs. He further added that his father Mast Ram filed a civil suit for his share and in that suit l/3rd share in the ownership was given to his father Mast Ram. The witness further added that the possession remained with the plaintiffs. It is being argued now that the possession of the suit land was with the plaintiff for the last 27-28 years and, therefore, it has ripened into full ownership. I think such an inference is most uncalled for. At the first instance there is nothing on record to suggest as to when that suit was filed. There is also nothing on record as to what was the decree passed in that suit. All these facts could have been proved through documents which were selected not to be brought on record on behalf of the plaintiffs, Thus, the plaintiffs have not been able to establish through legally competent evidence that their possession has matured into title by way of adverse possession. The findings in this behalf by the two courts below also do not help the case of the appellants. 17. Last but not the least, it has been contended that even if the possession of the plaintiffs has to be protected till such time they were not dispossessed in accordance with law, even if no right, title or interest over the suit land is established. 18. Ex. P-4 is the copy of the order pertaining to the suit filed by Mast Ram which reflected that the suit filed by Mast Ram was dismissed on account of abatement. Ex. P-3 is the copy of the order of Sub-Judge, Rohru, in suit for possession filed by Munni Devi against the present plaintiffs. In that suit Munni Devi had claimed possession of 5 Bighas 13 Biswas of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 5214/2, 5215/2 and 5333, Khata Khatauni No. 16/24 which is a part of the suit land. This suit was dismissed on account of the failure of Smt Munni Devi to appear. That also meant that Munni Devi was out of possession of this particular land. One of the defendants Sudesh Kumar appeared as DW 2. This witness deposed that at present the suit land was in occupation of the plaintiffs and this possession took place after the grant of the stay order in their favour. 19. Entries in the records of rights have been placed on record. Ex. One of the defendants Sudesh Kumar appeared as DW 2. This witness deposed that at present the suit land was in occupation of the plaintiffs and this possession took place after the grant of the stay order in their favour. 19. Entries in the records of rights have been placed on record. Ex. D-5 is the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1977-78 pertaining to the suit land. This was the copy of the records of rights as it existed at the time of filing of the suit. In this copy Khasra Numbers 5214/2, 5215/2, 5333 measuring 5 Bighas 13 Biswas, Khasra Numbers 5310/1, 5309 measuring 5 Bighas 7 Biswas out of the suit land have been recorded in the ownership and possession of Munni Devi while in the land measuring 17 Bighas 5 Biswas, as detailed in the plaint, Smt. Munni Devi has been recorded to be owner of l/3rd share alongwith the plaintiffs who are recorded owners of 2/3rd share in joint possession of the suit land. Similar is the entry in the later revenue records 20. There is no doubt that prior to the filing of the present suit Mast Ram and Smt. Munni Devi had filed suit for possession with respect to part of the suit land and those suits were filed prior to the filing of the present suit. Legal presumption of truth is attached to the latest records of rights which do not record the plaintiffs to be in actual occupation of the entire suit land but on a part of that and that too as a co-sharers. The oral evidence examined is of very general nature. The learned District Judge while giving a finding of possession of the entire suit land in favour of the plaintiffs has relied upon the statement of DW 2 This DW 2, one of the defendants, nowhere admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the entire suit land. He has simply stated that the plaintiffs occupied the land after the stay order. This does not reflect that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was admitted on the date of the filing of the suit. 21. He has simply stated that the plaintiffs occupied the land after the stay order. This does not reflect that the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was admitted on the date of the filing of the suit. 21. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the entire suit land On the other hand, as detailed above, defendant No. 3 was in occupation of a part of the suit land and a part of it was in her joint possession alongwith the plaintiffs. With this background the plaintiffs will not be legally entitled to prohibitory injunction asked for by them. The injunction could be granted in their favour if they legally established a legal right in their favour which stood violated by the opposite party. In the present case that legal right claimed by them that they were owners in possession of the entire suit land has not been established and accordingly, this discretionary relief of perpetual injunction cannot be granted in their favour. 22. Otherwise also, even if for arguments sake the possession of the plaintiffs is presumed, it can be a wrongful one and on that score the wrongful possession, under the law, cannot be directed to be protected against the true owner. 23. Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar, AIR 1962 Mad 149, can safely be referred. In this reported case it has been held that a person in wrongful possession of property is not entitled to be protected against the lawful owner by an order of injunction with the assistance of the court. 24. Dalip Singh and others v. State of H. P. and others, 1992 (1) Sim LC 320, has been referred by the learned Counsel for the appellants. In this case it has been held that where a person is in settled possession of the property even on the assumption that he had do right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. There is absolutely no dispute to the aforesaid proposition of law. The only thing is whether the plaintiffs are in settled possession. As referred to above, the entries in the records of rights were otherwise which have not been successfully rebutted. Their possession on a part of the suit land was as a co sharers. There is absolutely no dispute to the aforesaid proposition of law. The only thing is whether the plaintiffs are in settled possession. As referred to above, the entries in the records of rights were otherwise which have not been successfully rebutted. Their possession on a part of the suit land was as a co sharers. The evidence nowhere legally proved the plaintiffs settled possession over the entire suit land, In this view of the matter, the ratio of the aforesaid case law will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. No other point has been stressed. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly dismiss the same. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.