JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.1.2997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil appeal No.ll-N/1996, whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.12.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class(2), Nurpur, declaring the appellants-defendants (hereafter referred to as the defendants7) and the respondents-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as the plaintiffs) joint owners in possession in equal shares of the land comprising Khata No. 103, Khatauni No. 275, Khasra Nos. 543, 555 and 553, measuring 1-30-79 HM, situate in Mohal and Mauza Chhatroli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, has been affirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties in equal shares and the entries showing the defendants as exclusive owners in possession of the suit land are illegal, null and void and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs, who are co-sharers with them. 3. Case of the plaintiffs as made out in the plaint is that deceased Nathu Ram was the owner in possession of the property in suit and died intestate on 16.11.1984. Said Nathu Ram first married Soma Devi mother of the plaintiffs and on her death he married defendant Nirmala Devi, mother of defendants No. 1 to 6. Thus, the parties being legal heirs of deceased Nathu Ram by inheritance became co-sharers in joint possession of the suit land. However, the defendants in the absence and without the consent of the plaintiffs and in connivance with the revenue officials misrepresenting the facts claimed to be the only legal heirs of Nathu Ram and got the mutation attested in their favour on 23.7.1986 which mutation is illegal, null and void. The defendants, who are forcible persons, started threatening the plaintiffs not to allow them any share or enjoyment of the suit land on the basis of the wrong entries and started threatening to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendants, who are forcible persons, started threatening the plaintiffs not to allow them any share or enjoyment of the suit land on the basis of the wrong entries and started threatening to dispossess them forcibly from the suit land. Hence, the suit. 4. Defendants No. 1, 4 and 7, through Counsel representing all the defendants, filed the written statement in which preliminary objections were taken to the effect that the suit was not maintainable in the present form, that the plaintiffs have no locus standi or cause of action to institute the suit and that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct, On merits, while admitting the ownership and possession of Nathu Ram on the suit land, his date of death and his having two wives and the parties being born out of the two wives as alleged in the plaint, it has been denied that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Nathu Ram. It is claimed that plaintiff Ram Raksh Pal had strained relations with Nathu Ram and used to quarrel with him, therefore, a brotherhood Panchayat was constituted and a family arrangement was made on 8.6.1977 whereby the properties v/ere divided between deceased Nathu Ram and plaintiff Ram Raksh Pal, whereby about 52 Kanals of land in Mauza Thora Bhalun was given to plaintiff Ram Raksh Pal who was also given the share M the residential house, cash, ornaments and business. The suit land was given to the defendants. After this family arrangement the parties started living separately as per said arrangement. Subsequently, deceased Nathu Ram executed a Will on 12.11.1984 in favour of the defendants whereby the suit property and other properties owned and possessed by Nathu Ram deceased were given to defendants No. 1 and 7 on the basis of which the mutation of inheritance was accordingly sanctioned to which the plaintiffs never raised any objection. Apart from defendants No. 1 and 7 all other heirs were excluded by Nathu Ram from inheriting the properties which remained in his hand including the suit property and, thus, the claim of the plaintiffs had been denied. 5. Plaintiffs filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement has been denied and the claim as made out in the plaint has been re-affirmed. 6. 5. Plaintiffs filed replication wherein the grounds of defence as taken in the written statement has been denied and the claim as made out in the plaint has been re-affirmed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the extent of 2/9 share and defendants to the extent of 7/9 share in the suit property as alleged? OPP 3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether the revenue entries showing the defendants to be the exclusive owner in possession of the suit property, are wrong, illegal, null, void and not binding on the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit for mere declaration is not maintainable as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 6-A. Whether there had been a family arrangement between Nathu Ram deceased and plaintiff No. 1? If so, to what effect? OPD 6-B. Whether Nathu Ram deceased executed a valid will in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 7, as alleged? OPD 1 & 7. 7. Relief." 7. On appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court decided Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and the remaining issues were decided against the defendants and, as a consequence, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala. Hence, this Second Appeal by the defendants. 8. This appeal had been admitted for hearing on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is a result of mis-construction and mis-construing of the material evidence (oral as also documentary) more especially the documents Ex. Dl and DW-2/A and statements of witnesses especially DWs 3 and 5 which has vitiated the findings rendering the impugned judgment and decree illegal? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is a result of mis-construction and mis-construing of the material evidence (oral as also documentary) more especially the documents Ex. Dl and DW-2/A and statements of witnesses especially DWs 3 and 5 which has vitiated the findings rendering the impugned judgment and decree illegal? 2. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Courts below were right in discarding document Ex. D-1 (Tasfiya Nama) i.e. the family settlement by holding that the same required registration particularly when the same only records the fact of previous settlement in reiteration of the same? 3. Whether the learned Courts below were right in holding the Will Ex. DW-2/A illegal and invalid by placing reliance on the statement of DW-5 and the opinion Ex. DW-2/A of PW-2 which is the result of mis-construing the same and particularly in law PW-2/ A being only an opinion evidence and was not a conclusive proof of fact? 4. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the discrepancies and circumstances taken note of by the Courts below are sufficient in law to constitute unexplained suspicious circumstances so as to discard the Will Ex. DW-2/A? 5. Whether the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law to the extent it declares the respondents-plaintiffs to be in possession of the suit land particularly when there has not been any findings returned or recorded by either of the Courts below to hold the plaintiffs-respondents in possession alongwith the appellants-defendants of the suit land?" 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. Substantial Question Nos. 1 to 4: 10. Since all these questions in one form or the other are based on the alleged misconstruction/alleged rejection of Tasfianama Ext. D-l and Will Ext. DW-2/A as evidence, therefore, are taken up together for discussion and determination. 11. Tasfianama Ext. D-l has been held by the Courts below inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and has further been held as a mere paper transaction for the reason that it was never acted upon by the parties to it. 12. It was contended for the defendants that Ext. 11. Tasfianama Ext. D-l has been held by the Courts below inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and has further been held as a mere paper transaction for the reason that it was never acted upon by the parties to it. 12. It was contended for the defendants that Ext. D-l is a mere recital of arrangements already arrived at, therefore, was not required to be registered and was cogent and reliable evidence of family arrangement between Nathu Ram deceased and plaintiff Ram Raksh Pal regarding the family properties and has wrongly been held as a paper transaction. 13. The alleged Tasfianama Ext. D-l is admittedly not registered. On the face of it, it purports to extinguish rights of one party and create such rights in the 2nd party in movable as well as immovable properties value whereof indisputably is much more than Rs. 100/-. A bare perusal of this document shows that it creates/extinguishes the rights and is not mere recital or acknowledgement of such creation or extinction in the past. Therefore, Ext. D-l was compulsorily registerable but having not been registered has rightly been held inadmissible in evidence by the Courts below. 14. The question as to whether the arrangement arrived at by Ext. D-l was ever acted upon or not is a pure question of fact and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in this regard are that Ext. D-l was never acted upon and remained a paper transaction. These concurrent findings are not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. On the contrary, it clearly emerges from the statements of Girdhari Lal (DW-2) a marginal witness, Sansar Chand (DW-3) the scribe and the plaintiff (PW-1 a party to Ext. D-l that this document though came into being but was never acted upon. 15. In view of the above, the Courts below have rightly rejected and disbelieved the Tasfianama Ext. D-l. 16. The defendants have set up the Will Ext. DW-2/A and it was for them to prove valid execution of the said Will. The only witness examined by the defendants to prove the valid execution of Ext. DW-2/A is Kartar Singh (DW-5). The Courts below have disbelieved the statement of this witness and held the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of the infirmities in the statement of DW-5 and the opinion Ext. The only witness examined by the defendants to prove the valid execution of Ext. DW-2/A is Kartar Singh (DW-5). The Courts below have disbelieved the statement of this witness and held the Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances because of the infirmities in the statement of DW-5 and the opinion Ext. PW-2/A of the handwriting expert M.L. Sharma (PW-2). 17. The evidence of DW-5 is that Will Ext. DW-2/A was executed in Malegra in the house of Nakul Dev where Nathu Ram had gone after having been discharged from the Hospital and that so executed Will was signed by him, and Thuru Ram and Satpal were also present there. It is further in his evidence that Nathu Ram, Thuru Ram and Shamsher Singh, the scribe, had also signed the Will. However, when confronted with the Will Ext. DW-2/A, he admitted that it does not bear the signatures of Thuru Ram and Shamsher Singh. 18. It is admitted by defendant Ashok Kumar (DW-4) that Nathu Ram died in the hospital where he had been admitted one month before his death. As per the admitted case of the parties in their pleadings Nathu Ram died on 16.11.1984. The Will Ext. DW-2/A purports to have been executed on 12.11.1984. In view of the admissions of DW-4 that his father remained admitted in the hospital for a month before his death and he died in the hospital, it is improbable that 4 days before his death despite being admitted in the hospital, Nathu Ram was present in the house of Nakul Dev in Malegra to execute the Will Ext. DW-2/A. These suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Will Ext. DW-2/A have not at all been explained. 19. As per the opinion of PW-2 given after comparison of the signatures of Nathu Ram on Ext. DW-2/A and his admitted writing, the signatures on the Will Ext. DW-2/A purporting to be those of Nathu Ram were not his signatures. 20. In view of the above, the Courts below were fully justified in holding that the Will Ext. DW-2/A was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and its valid execution was not proved. Substantial Question No. 5: 21. DW-2/A and his admitted writing, the signatures on the Will Ext. DW-2/A purporting to be those of Nathu Ram were not his signatures. 20. In view of the above, the Courts below were fully justified in holding that the Will Ext. DW-2/A was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and its valid execution was not proved. Substantial Question No. 5: 21. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the defendants that none of the lower Courts has recorded the findings that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the suit land but the plaintiffs inter alia have been declared in joint possession of the suit land. Thus, this part of the relief not based on any findings could not have been granted, therefore, the impugned decree to this extent being bad in law deserves to be set aside. 22. Issue No. 1 framed by the trial Court arises of the claim of the plaintiffs that they are joint owners in joint possession of the suit land. This issue has been held by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and the Appellate Court below has affirmed these findings. The basis for this as in the trial Court judgment is that Nathu Ram who was owner in possession of the suit land died intestate and his estate was inherited by the parties as his legal heirs, therefore, parties were held to be the joint owners in possession of the suit land. Since the parties inherited the estate of Nathu Ram as his legal heirs, therefore, became co-sharers in the suit land. Thus, by incident of succession having become co-sharers of the suit land, the parties are to be deemed to be in joint possession of the suit land because possession of one or some of the co-sharers in law is possession of all unless ouster/adverse possession is pleaded by the party claiming to be in absolute possession of the joint property whereas such is not the claim of the defendants. Therefore, the decree declaring the plaintiffs as joint owners in possession of the suit land cannot be faulted with more so when plaintiff Ram Raksh Pal (PW-1) has specifically stated that the suit land is in joint possession of the parties whereas defendant Ashok Kumar (DW-4) in his examination-in-chief has not stated that the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the defendants. 23. 23. For the reasons and conclusions herein above, there is no merit and substance in this appeal. 24. As a result this appeal is dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs of the appeal. Appeal dismissed.