JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This second appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6-1-1990 by the District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/1985 by which the plaintiffs/respondents' suit for declaration of their title over the suit-land and permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering in their possession, thereon was decreed, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1985 in Civil Suit No. 12-A/1985 by Civil Judge, Class-II, Dharamjaigarh. 2. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the Will is hit by the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1955 as a Hindu cannot by a Will so dispose of his property as to defeat the legal right of his wife as held in AIR 1967 SC 16531" 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are : that the parties to these proceedings are brothers being sons of Bichhi Urao. Bichhi Urao had in all about 70.31 acres of land and during his lifetime in the year 1967 partitioned the said property amongst himself and his sons. It is also not in dispute that Bichhi Urao retained only 6.18 acres of land, while the sons - parties to these proceedings, got about 16.0 acres of land each. Bichhi died on 6-6-1975. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit claiming right on the land area 6.18 acres retained by Bichhi on the ground that a Will dated 12-8-1974 was executed in their favour by their father Bichhi. The defendants/appellants resisted the suit and denied that Bichhi executed the Will as alleged by the plaintiffs/respondents. According to them, the alleged Will was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud played on Bichhi by the plaintiffs/respondents. They urged that the plaintiffs/respondents did not get any right over the said property on the basis of the said Will. It was further urged that Bichhi could not have bequeathed the suit-land in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents only ignoring the claim of his wife and his other sons, the defendants/appellants. 5. The trial Court held that the Will was not free from doubt and accordingly dismissed the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred appeal before the lower Appellate Court. It was further urged that Bichhi could not have bequeathed the suit-land in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents only ignoring the claim of his wife and his other sons, the defendants/appellants. 5. The trial Court held that the Will was not free from doubt and accordingly dismissed the suit. The respondents/plaintiffs preferred appeal before the lower Appellate Court. By the impugned-judgment, the lower Appellate Court, after reappraisal of evidence on record, held that the Will has been duly proved, it is not a suspicious document and it was voluntarily and consciously executed by Bichhi. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed. 6. As noticed earlier, this appeal has only been admitted on the question, whether the Will is hit by the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 as Bichhi could not have disposed of his property so as to defeat the legal right of his wife, as held in AIR 1967 SC 1653'? It appears that there is no citation as above and there appears to be some error in that regard in the substantial question of law as framed. It may be noted that the above mistake has crept in, on account of the citation as above having been mentioned in the memo of appeal in para-6 thereof. It further appears that the reference in the memo of appeal might have been to the case of Valliammai Achi.v. Nagappa Chettiar and Anr. AIR 1967 SC 1153 . It appears that the testator of that case Nagappa made a Will in June, 1934 and the controversy, whether he could make a Will and dispose of the property of the Joint Hindu Family by Will was under consideration. The said case, therefore, relates to a Will executed, before the Hindu Law relating to succession was codified. 7. Hindu Law regarding succession has since been codified and is now governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Chapter-Ill of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 relates to testamentary succession. Section 30 thereof clearly lays down that a Hindu may dispose of by Will any property, which is within his power to bequeath, by testamentary disposition. By the explanation thereof, it has further been enacted that the interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenery property is capable of being disposed of by Will. Section 30 thereof clearly lays down that a Hindu may dispose of by Will any property, which is within his power to bequeath, by testamentary disposition. By the explanation thereof, it has further been enacted that the interest of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenery property is capable of being disposed of by Will. Thus, in view of the specific provisions as above regarding disposition of property by Will, there now remains hardly any doubt that his property could be disposed of by Will by Bichhi and, therefore, the Will could not be challenged on that ground. 8. So far as provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are concerned, it may be noticed that therein the right of maintenance of a wife has been ensured by making suitable provisions. Chapter-Ill of the said Act relates to maintenance of wife and other members of the family. Section 18(1) thereof lays down that a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime. Section 19 further provides that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her father-in-law after the death of her husband and that she is entitled to have maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or mother or her son or daughter or his or her estate. However, none of these provisions can be construed as expressly or impliedly debarring a Hindu from bequeathing his property by way of Will. Moreover, as already noticed, this suit was not filed by the widow of Bichhi, who appears to have already died. 9. Therefore, the appellants/defendants' challenge to the Will on the ground of competence and capacity of the testator, their father Bichhi, is not well-founded. As already noticed, the law laid down in Valliammai Achi's case (supra) does not, in any way further the contentions of the appellants in the above regard. 10. Accordingly, it is found that Bichhi was competent to bequeath the suit-land, which admittedly fell in his share in the partition effected by him and was thus his own personal property. Moreover, the widow of Bichhi having not filed the suit and not joined as a party, the defendants/ appellants were also not competent to raise the dispute as above regarding the Will. Moreover, the widow of Bichhi having not filed the suit and not joined as a party, the defendants/ appellants were also not competent to raise the dispute as above regarding the Will. The Will is not hit by the provisions of either the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Will, in fact, does not adversely affect any legal right of his widow. Therefore, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. 11. Besides the above substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant with the leave of the Court, has also raised another question that the Will (Ex. P/l) set-up by its propounders-the plaintiffs/respondents- has not been properly proved. Learned counsel for both the parties were heard on the point. 12. It has been urged in the above context that the plaintiffs have not examined the attesting witness Patras and that the execution of Will is doubtful as it has ignored the claim of the defendants/appellants as well as the wife of Bichhi, inasmuch as, the above persons have not been given any share in the suit-property. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Omprakash Sharma v. Smt. Saraswati Bai and Ors.. In the said case, relying upon Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti AIR 1990 SC 396 , it has been laid down that the burden of due execution of the Will and to remove doubt about the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will is on the person, who sets up the same. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, however, urged that the learned lower Appellate Court has, after detailed consideration and assessment of evidence, placed on record, held that the Will has been duly and voluntarily executed by deceased Bichhi. Relying upon Satya Pal Gopal Das v. Smt. Panchubala Dasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 500 , it has been urged by him that merely because the wife and the sons were not given any share in the suit property by the testator, that by itself would not render the Will suspicious. 14. It is noticed that the Will (Ex. P/l) executed by Bichhi was set-up by plaintiffs/respondents. They have examined the petition-writer Surendra Singh Thakur (P,W. 2) the scribe of the Will, as also one of the attesting witness Sukru (P.W. 3) to prove the Will. 14. It is noticed that the Will (Ex. P/l) executed by Bichhi was set-up by plaintiffs/respondents. They have examined the petition-writer Surendra Singh Thakur (P,W. 2) the scribe of the Will, as also one of the attesting witness Sukru (P.W. 3) to prove the Will. The learned lower Appellate Court has found their statements reliable and it has held that there is no doubt regarding the circumstances of execution of Will (Ex. P/l) by Bichhi- It has been held that it was satisfactorily proved that the Will was duly executed by Bichhi. Notice has also been taken by the lower Appellate Court that the said Will was also got registered. It was thus held that the Will (Ex. P/l) does not suffer from any legal infirmity and deserved to be acted upon as the last Will of testator Bichhi. Since execution of the Will has been duly proved in the case, the respondents had successfully discharged their burden. Therefore, in view of ratio of Satya Pal Gopal Das (supra), due execution and authenticity of the Will (Ex. P/l) could not be doubted, simply because property was not given to appellants by the said Will. In view of above, the case of Omprakash Sharma (supra) does not render any assistance to the case of appellants. The finding of fact as above recorded by lower Appellate Court seems to be based on detailed and due appreciation of evidence and calls for no interference. Therefore, contentions as above of the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants cannot be accepted. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is without merit and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this. Appeal dismissed