JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.: This regular second appeal has been directed against die judgment and decree dated 3.3.1989 of the learned District Judge, Una, affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1985 of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amb. 2. The appellants before this Court were the defendants 1 and 2 while the respondents 1 to 4 were the plaintiffs and respondents 5 to 11 were the defendants 3 to 9 before the learned trial court. The parties are being referred to accordingly hereinafter. 3. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the land measuring 38 kanals 7 m arias, that is, 29 kanals 19 marias of village Oel, Tehsil Arab, and 8 kanals 8 marlas of village Basal, Tehsil Una, as specifically described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case as are enumerated in the plaint are these. One Roshan Lal son of Kishan Chand of village Oel was the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. The said Roshan lal died on 4.7.1980 and was succeeded by the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 9 being his agnates. However, defendants 3 to 9 relinquished their interests in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, since after the death of the above said Roshan Lal and the relinquishment of interests by defendants 3 to 9, the plaintiffs arc coining in possession of the land in dispute as owners thereof. The defendants 1 and 2 who have no right, title or interest in the land in dispute on the basis of an invalid and forged will got the mutation of inheritance qua the land in dispute of village Basal sanctioned in their favour. The deceased Roshan Lal was a man of very weak intellect and was not in a position to understand his acts and to look after his interests. After the death of Kishan Lal, the father of the said Roshan Lal, the person and property of the said Roshan Lal was entrusted to plaintiff No. 1 by the respectables of the village and brotherhood. The said Roshan Lal not being of a sound disposing mind was not in a position to execute the will. After the death of Kishan Lal, the father of the said Roshan Lal, the person and property of the said Roshan Lal was entrusted to plaintiff No. 1 by the respectables of the village and brotherhood. The said Roshan Lal not being of a sound disposing mind was not in a position to execute the will. The defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of the forged and invalid will and the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs with the object of taking forcible possession thereof. Accordingly a suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiffs. 5. Defendants 3 to 9 admitted the claim and suit of the plaintiffs. 6. The suit was thus being resisted and contested by defendants 1 and 2. They admitted Roshan Lal to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. It was pleaded that the said Roshan Lal in a sound disposing mind had executed a valid will in their favour on 1.5.1980 in lieu of services rendered by them. They are in possession of the land in dispute as owners under the said will since after the death of Roshan Lal. The mutation of inheritance in respect of the land in dispute of village Basal was rightly sanctioned in their favour. It was further pleaded that besides the plaintiffs, there are other natural heirs of the deceased Roshan Lal. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial court: - 1. Whether Sh. Roshan Lal deceased executed a valid will in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and they are in possession of the disputed land as owners as alleged, if so its effect ? OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 9 are agnates of Roshan Lal deceased and are in possession of the suit land was owners ? OPP 3. Whether there are other natural heirs of deceased Roshan Lal except the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 9, if so its effect ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action ? OPD 5. Relief. - . 8. The learned trial court answered issues No. 1,3 and 4 in the negative and issue No.2 in affirmative. It was held that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the land in dispute. OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action ? OPD 5. Relief. - . 8. The learned trial court answered issues No. 1,3 and 4 in the negative and issue No.2 in affirmative. It was held that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the land in dispute. No valid will was executed by the deceased Roshan Lal in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed on 14.8.1985. 9. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by defendants 1 and 2 by affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 10. The findings of the two courts below have now been assailed by the defendants 1 and 2 by virtue of the present regular second appeal. 11. The present second appeal was admitted only on the following question of law:- "Whether on the correct interpretation of Ex.PW-1/A dated 22.4.1971 and Ex. PA dated 22.11.1978, it is proved on record that Roshan Lal was not capable of executing the will being of unsound mind or idiot or not knowing what he was doing." 12. The two courts below upon consideration of evidence led by the parties, have come to a concurrent finding that the deceased did not possess a sound disposing mind and* was not capable of making the will Ex. D-l. 13. Ex.PW-1/A is a document which came to be executed on 22.04.1971. Kishan Chand, father of the deceased Roshan Lal, admittedly had died on 7.4.1971. Vide document Ex.PW-1/A, which is singed by several respectable persons of village Oel including the Sarpanch of the Panchayat, the person and property of the deceased Roshan Lal was handed over under the care and custody of plaintiff No. 1 Gopal Chand. The document records that since the father of Roshan Lal had died and he had no brother or sister to look after him and manage his property and since he was not capable of looking after himself and manage his affairs on account of his being a "Jain" (idiot), his person and property was being entrusted to Gopal Chand plaintiff. PW 3 Tirath Ram, Sarpanch, PW 4 Kaka Ram,, the scribe, PW 5 Bihari Lal and PW 6 Amar Nath are some of the signatories of the said document. PW 3 Tirath Ram, Sarpanch, PW 4 Kaka Ram,, the scribe, PW 5 Bihari Lal and PW 6 Amar Nath are some of the signatories of the said document. They have in one voice stated that the deceased Roshan Lal did not possess a sound disposing mind and was not capable of looking himself and to manage his own affairs. 14. Ex. PA was executed on 22.11.1978. Its execution stands admitted by defendant Mehar Chand while appearing as DW-1. Vide this document Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, the mother of defendants 1 and 2 took the custody of deceased Roshan Lal and the ornaments belonging to him. In this document also it is recorded that Smt. Mukhtiari Devi had taken the custody of the person of deceased Roshan Lal from the plaintiff Gopal Chand. This fact also prove that initially the custody of the person and property of deceased Roshan Lal was given to plaintiff Gopal Chand vide Ex. PW/A. 15. A true and correct interpretation of the two documents Ex. PW-I/A and Ex. PA coupled with the oral evidence coming on the record leaves no manner of doubt the deceased Roshan Lal did not possess a sound disposing mind and as such was not capable of executing a will. The two courts below have rightly held will Ex.D-1 to be not a valid will. 16. It has further been contended on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2 that assuming that deceased Roshan Lal was an idiot, he could not have inherited the property of his father under Hindu Law and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the land in dispute as agnates of the deceased Roshan Lal. 17. The contention raised has to be rejected. Firstly no such plea was raised by defendants 1 and 2 either before the trial Court or before the learned first appellate court. No such plea was even raised in the grounds of appeal before this Court. The defendants 1 and 2, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise such plea at this belated stage 18. Secondly, the bar to inheritance by an idiot stands removed under Section 4(l)(b) read with Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 19. As stated above, Kishan Chand, father of deceased Roshan Lal had died on 7.4.1971, that is, much after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Secondly, the bar to inheritance by an idiot stands removed under Section 4(l)(b) read with Section 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 19. As stated above, Kishan Chand, father of deceased Roshan Lal had died on 7.4.1971, that is, much after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Succession to his estate would, therefore, be governed by the provisions of the said Act. 20. Section 4(1) (b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, provides:-"Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act - (a)............... (b) any other law in, force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindu insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act." Section 28 further provides:- "No persons shall be disqualified from succeeding to any property on the ground of any disease, defect or deformity, or save as provided in this Act, on any other ground whatsoever." 21. The heirs who have been disqualified from succession under the Hindu Succession act are enumerated in Sections 24, 25 and 26 thereof. These provisions do not debar an idiot from succession. 22. In view of the provisions contained in Sections 4(1) (b) and 28 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the deceased Roshan Lal had rightly succeeded to the land in dispute inspite of idiocy. 23. The plaintiffs being the agnates of the deceased Roshan Lal, therefore, have a preferential right to the land in dispute as against the defendants being agnates. 24. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1500/- -