JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant-defendant (hereafter referred to as the appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.9.1994, passed by the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Dehra, decreeing the suit of plaintiffs respondents 1 and 2 (hereafter referred to as R-l and R-2) has been dismissed and the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge have been affirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that R-l and R-2 instituted a suit in the trial Court for declaration that they alongwith Mehar Chand, respondent-defendant No. 3 (hereafter referred to as R-3) are the owners in possession of land comprising Khata No. 114, Khatauni Nos. 330 to 338, kita 13, measuring 1-34-54 hectares, situate in Mohal Saund, Mauza Har and the land comprising Khata No. 175, Khatauni No. 410, Kita 7, measuring 0-49-33 hectares, situate in Mohal Har, Teh. Dehra, Distt. Kangra, with the consequential relief of injunction, restraining the appellant and defendant Pathanu, (who was added as defendant No. 2 in the suit but since having died is now represented by respondents 4 to 9), from interfering with the possession of R-l and R-2. Case of R-l and R-2, as made out in the plaint is that one Prema died on 21.7.1980, leaving behind R-l to R-3 as his only legal heirs on the basis of Will dated 19.7.1990 which was duly executed by said Prema in their favour while he was in disposing state of mind. The said Will is stated to be the last Will of Prema and on the basis thereof, R-l and R-2 claimed that they alongwith R-3 were entitled to succeed to the land in suit. R-l presented the said Will before the Sub-Registrar, Dehra on 26.7.1980 for registration. The appellant resisted the registration of the Will and set up Will dated 15.1.1980 which is forged, false and fabricated. At the time of institution of the suit, both the Wills were pending before the Sub Registrar for registration. R-l presented the said Will before the Sub-Registrar, Dehra on 26.7.1980 for registration. The appellant resisted the registration of the Will and set up Will dated 15.1.1980 which is forged, false and fabricated. At the time of institution of the suit, both the Wills were pending before the Sub Registrar for registration. Thereafter, the defendants threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land and with a view to do so, assaulted R-l and R-2 for which the appellant and others were charge sheeted under Sections 447/ 427, 147/149 and 325 IPC. However, the offences were subsequently compounded and the appellant conceded the possession of R-l and R-2 over the suit land and also agreed not to disturb such possession till the adjudication of the dispute by competent Court. The appellant, however, did not finally concede the rights of R-l to R-3. Hence the suit. 3. The appellant contested the suit. In his written statement, he raised the preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable; that the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to sue; that plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit and that the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. On merits, it was admitted that Prema was the owner in possession of the suit land. However, inheritance of the suit land by respondents 1 to 3 has been denied and it has been claimed that mutation of inheritance has wrongly been attested in th£ir favour. It was further averred that said Prema had executed a Will in favour of the appellant on 20.7.1980 and by virtue of the said Will, he became the absolute owner of the suit land and R-l to R-3 have no right, title and interest therein. The institution of the criminal case as alleged in the plaint is admitted, but it is claimed that it was initiated in order to harass the family of the appellant. The claim of the plaintiff has, thus, been denied. 4. R-l and R-2 filed replication wherein the defence as set up in the written statement was denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was reasserted and reaffirmed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 2. 4. R-l and R-2 filed replication wherein the defence as set up in the written statement was denied and the claim as made out in the plaint was reasserted and reaffirmed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of daughters of Prema and general public as alleged and if so, its effect? OPD-2. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the suit OPD-1. 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 5. Whether Prema deceased executed a valid Will in favour of plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 dated 19.7.1980? OPD. 6. Whether the deceased Prema executed a valid Will on 20.7.1980 in favour of defendant No. 1? OPD-1. 7. If issue Nos. 5 and 6 are not proved, whether the estate of deceased Prema is to go to defendant No. 2 by succession? OPD-2. 7-A. Whether the daughters of deceased Prema have no issue and defendant No. 2 is otherwise entitled to succeed the property of the deceased? OPP 8. Relief. 6. On the basis of the material on record, the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in the negative and issue No. 5 was answered in the affirmative whereas issue No. 7-A was partly decided in the affirmative and partly in the negative vide judgment dated 24.9.1994 and as a consequence, the suit was decreed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala by the impugned judgment and decree. Hence this appeal. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 9. This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether both the learned Courts below were right in ignoring the fact that Ex. DW-4/A being the last Will deserve to be upheld? 2. Whether both the learned Courts below were right in concluding that the Will Ex. DW 3/A was shrouded in suspicious circumstances ignoring the judgment cited including the judgment by this Honble Court direciJy covering the issues? 3. DW-4/A being the last Will deserve to be upheld? 2. Whether both the learned Courts below were right in concluding that the Will Ex. DW 3/A was shrouded in suspicious circumstances ignoring the judgment cited including the judgment by this Honble Court direciJy covering the issues? 3. Whether both the learned Courts below were right in holding that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the judgment of both the learned Courts below is based on a complete misreading of the evidence on record of the case? Substantial Questions No. 1, 2 and 4 10. Since these substantial questions can be conveniently dealt with together, therefore, are taken up together for discussion. 11. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law that it is the last Will which must prevail on any other Will executed prior to it, provided that valid execution of such last Will is duly proved. In case the valid execution of the alleged last Will is not proved in accordance with law, it cannot be accepted against a Will though executed earlier in point of time but valid execution whereof is duly proved. 12. In the case in hand, both the Courts below have found that the Will Ext. PW-8/A propounded by the plaintiff was the valid and lawful Will of deceased Prema. On the contrary, both the Courts below found that the Will Ext. DW-4/A propounded by the appellant was shrouded by grave suspicious circumstances and execution thereof was not proved. 13. I have gone through the relevant evidence on record and find that the above concurrent findings of the Courts below do not suffer from the vice of perversity or unreasonableness but are duly supported by the material on record. 14. Valid execution of the Will Ext. PW-8/A and its being genuine is duly proved in view of the reliable testimony of Babu Ram (PW-6), Balbir (PW-8) and Tota Ram (PW-9). On the other hand, the valid execution and genuineness of the Will Ext. DW-4/A is shrouded by highly suspicious circumstances including the conduct of the appellant himself. This Will was allegedly executed by Prema on 20.7.1980 and he died on the next day, i.e. 21.7.1980. There is evidence on record to show that Prema was an illiterate person and he used to thumb-mark the documents whereas the Will Ext. DW-4/A is shrouded by highly suspicious circumstances including the conduct of the appellant himself. This Will was allegedly executed by Prema on 20.7.1980 and he died on the next day, i.e. 21.7.1980. There is evidence on record to show that Prema was an illiterate person and he used to thumb-mark the documents whereas the Will Ext. DW-4/A purports to be signed by Prema in Punjabi. There is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that Prema used to sign. 15. The other suspicious circumstance is the late production of this Will. There is no dispute that the Will Ext. PW-8/A was presented before the Sub-Registrar on 26.7.1980 for registration. Thereafter a notice to the general public was got published pursuant to which the appellant appeared before the Sub-Registrar and filed objections against the registration of the Will Ext. PW-8/A. However, he did not produce the Will Ext. DW-4/A along with his objections nor he claimed in his objection petition before the Sub-Registrar that the Will Ext. DW-4/A had been executed in his favour by Prema as is evident from the copies of the Zimini orders Exts. P-4 to P-11 passed by the Sub-.Registrar on different dates and the objection petition Ext. PW-7/C. Had the Will Ext. DW-4/A been in existence at the time of filing of the objection petition Ext. PW-7/C by the appellant on 6.8,1980, he would have averred in the objection petition that Prema had executed a Will in his favour. The failure of the appellant to produce Ext. DW-4/ A along with his said objection petition before the Sub-Registrar and his having failed to aver in his objection petition that there existed a Will executed by Prema in his favour, falsify the defence set up by the appellant in his written statement and seems to be an after thought. The only legitimate inference which can be drawn from the above circumstances is that the Will Ext. DW-4/A has been fabricated at a later stage. This Will was produced before the Sub-Registrar on 15.1.1981 for the first time. This delayed production further strengthens the above conclusion. 16. After the death of Prema, respondents No. 1 to 3 are in admitted possession of the suit land bequeathed in their favour by virtue of Will Ext. PW 8/A. The appellant never objected to their possession over the land in suit. 17. This delayed production further strengthens the above conclusion. 16. After the death of Prema, respondents No. 1 to 3 are in admitted possession of the suit land bequeathed in their favour by virtue of Will Ext. PW 8/A. The appellant never objected to their possession over the land in suit. 17. There is yet another established suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will Ext. DW-4/A. It is admitted case of the appellant that Prema had two daughters one of whom had died about 30 years before and the second was not heard of for the last 50 years, whereas in the Will Ext. DW-4/ A contrary to this admitted position, there is reference only to the wife and a daughter of Prema. 18. In case the Will Ext. DW-4/A was in fact executed by Prema after the execution of the Will Ext. PW-8/A, there would have been reference in the Will Ext. DW-4/A regarding execution of the Will Ext. PW-8/A and a clause regarding cancellation of such Will ought to have been there. However, there is no such clause in the Will Ext. DW-4/A. 19. Further, there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record that the appellant had ever rendered services to deceased Prema during his life time which could have motivated him to execute the Will in his favour. 20. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are based on mis-reading of evidence on record. Both the Courts below were right in holding that valid execution and genuineness of the Will Ext. DW-4/A was not proved, therefore, this Will could not have been acted upon simply because it purports to have been executed on a date subsequent to the date of execution of the Will Ext. PW-8/A which has been found to be a valid Will of deceased Prema. 21. These substantial questions are answered accordingly. Substantial Question No. 3. 22. The Courts below never held that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties". In fact, the Courts below have held that the suit was maintainable and did not suffer from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary parties. This question, thus, does not arise for determination. 23. No other point has been urged. 24. 22. The Courts below never held that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties". In fact, the Courts below have held that the suit was maintainable and did not suffer from the vice of nonjoinder of necessary parties. This question, thus, does not arise for determination. 23. No other point has been urged. 24. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference and as a result, this appeal is dismissed. The parties, however, are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed. -