JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. :- This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgments and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kullu. 2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession in respect of the suit land against the defendants, with the allegations that Karmu son of Gianu was owner in possession of the suit land and that he had died intestate on 14.2.1979 and after his death the suit land was inherited by his widow Smt. Dharmi, who died in the year 1981, leaving behind the plaintiffs as her only legal heirs, inasmuch as, they were borne to said Smt. Dharmi from her first husband Ramu. It was alleged that Smt. Dharmi was widowed at the young age in 1949 and thereafter she married Karmu aforesaid on 31.8.1949. Marriage deed Ext. P1 was executed by her while marriage deed Ex. P2 was executed by Karmu in her favour. It was alleged that as per the custom governing the parties, widow remarriage was permissible. It was further alleged that on the death of Karmu the suit land was mutated in favour of Smt. Dharmi on 31.5.1981 but in the appeal filed by defendant No. 3, the Collector had remanded the mutation proceedings to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, who had attested the mutation in favour of the defendant No. 1, to 3, vide order dated 3.9.1988 and the said order is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land, being the sons of Smt. Dharmi. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 by filing the written statement. He denied the relationship of the plaintiffs and Smt. Dharmi with Karmu. It was alleged that in fact Smt. Dharmi was married to Ramu and had given birth to the plaintiffs from the loins of Ramu. It was denied that Smt. Dharmi had married Karmu. The execution of the marriage deeds dated 31.8.1949 by Karmu and Smt. Smt. Dharmi was denied. It was alleged that in fact Smt. Dharmi was married to Ramu and had given birth to the plaintiffs from the loins of Ramu. It was denied that Smt. Dharmi had married Karmu. The execution of the marriage deeds dated 31.8.1949 by Karmu and Smt. Smt. Dharmi was denied. It was alleged that in fact Karmu was the real brother of defendants No. 1 to 3 and after his death, defendants No. 1 to 3 had inherited the suit land. It was alleged that the mutation, which was earlier sanctioned on 31.5.1981 in favour of Smt. Dharmi had rightly been set aside in appeal and rightly sanctioned in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3. In this separate written statement, defendant No. 3 also took up similar pleas and it was further alleged that Karmu and defendant No. 3 being real brothers were living together and out of natural love and affection Karmu deceased had executed Will dated 9.1.1979 in sound disposing state of mind in his favour i.e. in favour of defendant No. 3 and after the death of Karmu deceased, defendant No. 3 had become owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of the said Will. It was alleged that the suit land was ancestral qua Karmu and defendant No. 3 and the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the suit land, inasmuch as, the issues of the wife from her first husband could not inherit the estate of the second husband. It was alleged that in fact Smt. Dharmi never resided with Karmu in his house as his legally wedded wife. Defendants No. 2 and 4 to 6 also filed a joint written statement, similar to the one which was filed by defendant No. 3. 4. Replications were filed. Various issues were framed. After hearing both the sides and perusing the records, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that Karmu deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant No. 3 and on the death of Karmu, defendant No. 3 had become owner in possession of the suit land. It was also held that Smt. Dharmi was not the legally wedded wife of Karmu and that she was not residing with him as his legally wedded wife. It was also held that Smt. Dharmi was not the legally wedded wife of Karmu and that she was not residing with him as his legally wedded wife. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone though the records carefully. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted before me that the courts below had erred in law in holding that the marriage of Karmu deceased with Smt. Dharmi was not proved on the record. It was submitted that in fact on the basis of the marriage deeds Ex.P1 and Ex. P2 it was proved on the file that marriage between Karmu deceased and Smt. Dharmj had taken place and thus Smt. Dharmi was the widow of Karmu at the time of his death and was entitled to inherit the suit property. It was further submitted that even the validity of the Will in question was not proved on the record and both the Courts below had erred in law in holding that defendant No. 3 had become owner of the suit property on the basis of the said Will, allegedly executed by Karmu deceased in his favour. 7. So far as the question regarding marriage of Smt. Dharmi with Karmu deceased is concerned, the plaintiffs are relying upon the marriage deeds Ex. P1 and Ex.P2, alleged executedly by Smt. Dharmi and Karmu on 31.8.1949. The scribe and the attesting witnesses of these documents have not been examined. However, the original documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were produced on the record by the plaintiffs. Both these documents are more than 30 years old and are admissible in evidence, inasmuch as, the Court is competent to presume that the signatures and every other part of such documents etc. was in that persons handwriting as provided under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both these documents had come from the custody of the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Smt. Dharmi and as per these documents Smt. Dharmi and Karmu were married on 31.8.1949, when they had executed these documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. was in that persons handwriting as provided under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both these documents had come from the custody of the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Smt. Dharmi and as per these documents Smt. Dharmi and Karmu were married on 31.8.1949, when they had executed these documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Thus, on the death of Karmu on 14.2.1979 both these documents would come in possession of Smt. Dharmi and on her death in 1981 these documents would come in possession of the plaintiffs, being her sons. The view taken by the Courts below that these documents were not admissible as these had not come to the Court from proper custody, in my opinion, is not the correct view since the custody of the plaintiffs over these documents could certainly be said to be proper custody, for the reasons already recorded above. The authority Parkash Chand and others v. Hans Raj and another, 1994(1) Shimla Law Cases 114: 1994(1) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) 117, relied upon by the learned Counsel for both the parties, in my opinion, would also support the view that both these documents are admissible in evidence since these documents have come from proper custody, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs have produced the same and the plaintiffs were supposed to have the custody of these documents, being the sons of Smt. Dharmi. Furthermore, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the plaintiffs had not proved the thumb impressions of Smt. Dharmi and Karmu on these documents, in my opinion, is also not the correct view since both these documents are more than 30 years old documents and according to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act the Court is competent to presume that the signatures and every other part of such documents, which purport to be in the handwriting of the particular person, is in that persons handwriting. Thus, the Court is competent to presume that the alleged thumb impressions of Smt. Dharmi and Karmu on these documents are those of Smt. Dharmi and Karmu. 8. Once the validity of the marriage, deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are proved on the record, in my opinion, the non-production of Voters List, Ration Card, Family Register and other witnesses to prove the existence of the relationship between Karmu and Smt. Dharmi would not be relevant. 8. Once the validity of the marriage, deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are proved on the record, in my opinion, the non-production of Voters List, Ration Card, Family Register and other witnesses to prove the existence of the relationship between Karmu and Smt. Dharmi would not be relevant. After the marriage even if the parties are living separately, still the same would be of no consequence since Smt. Dharmi would continue to be the wife of Karmu whether the parties live together as husband or wife or not after their marriage, in view of the marriage deeds, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Merely because the plaintiffs and/or their mother Smt. Dharmi had inherited the estate of Saunu, the cousin of Ramu, the father and the previous husband of Smt. Dharmi, in my opinion, would also be of no consequence to disprove the subsequent marriage of Smt. Dharmi with Karmu deceased, keeping in view the marriage deeds Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, which are duly proved on record, being more than 30 years old documents. 9. In view of the detailed discussion above, I reverse the findings of the Courts below on Issue No. 3 and hold that Smt. Dharmi was the legally wedded wife of Karmu, deceased. 10. Even if the finding on Issue No. 3 has been reversed by me above, the next question that comes up for consideration is as to whether Karmu had executed a valid Will in favour of defendant No. 3 and whether the findings of the courts below in this regard covered by issue No. 2 are liable to be reversed. The learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence led by the parties had come to the conclusion that Karmu had executed a valid Will on 9.1.1979 in favour of defendant No. 3. It was found that defendants No. 1 and 2 had admitted the genuineness of the said Will before the Sub Registrar. It was found that Karmu deceased had executed the Will in question in his own village. The said Will was scribed under the instruction of the testator and it was read over and explained to him and admitting its correctness he had thumb marked the same and the said Will was attested by DW-4 Keshnu and DW-5 Bhagat Ram, besides other members of the Gram Panchayat. The said Will was scribed under the instruction of the testator and it was read over and explained to him and admitting its correctness he had thumb marked the same and the said Will was attested by DW-4 Keshnu and DW-5 Bhagat Ram, besides other members of the Gram Panchayat. Merely because the Sub Registrar had declined to register the said Will subsequently, in my opinion, was rightly not taken as a ground to reject the said Will. Furthermore, even if the said Will was not got scribed from a licenced deed writer, in my opinion, could not be taken as a ground to decide against the validity of the said Will. The only other ground on which the validity of the said Will was doubted was that in the said Will Karmu deceased had not made any provision for his wife Smt. Dharmi. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, this could not be taken as a ground to doubt the validity of the said Will especially it had come in evidence that Smt. Dharmi was not residing with Karmu as his wife at the time of his death and even at the time when the said Will was executed by Karmu deceased (even though in view of my findings above, the marriage of Smt. Dharmi .with Karmu is proved on the record). On the facts of the present case, in my opinion, Karmu deceased was well justified in not making any provision for his wife Smt. Dharmi especially when it has come on the record to show that much prior to his executing the said Will in favour of defendant no. 3, his wife Smt. Dharmi and her sons (plaintiffs) had already inherited the estate of Saunu, a cousin of her previous husband Ramu, vide mutation dated 27.7.1969, copy Ex. DY and the mutation in respect of another property of said Saunu, which was inherited by the sons of Smt Dharmi i.e. the plaintiffs on 29.4.1969, vide mutation copy of which is Ex. PX. As referred to above, Karmu deceased did not have any child of his own. His wife Smt. Dharmi was having children from her previous marriage with Ramu. PX. As referred to above, Karmu deceased did not have any child of his own. His wife Smt. Dharmi was having children from her previous marriage with Ramu. If Smt. Dharmi was not residing with Karmu deceased as his wife, as has come in evidence, and even if Karmu deceased, in the Will Ex.DW4/A, has stated that he did not have a wife, in my opinion, the validity and genuineness of the said will cannot be doubted nor the plaintiffs can taken any advantage thereof, being the children from the previous husband of Smt. Dharmi. Furthermore, as referred to above the due execution of the said Will by Karmu in favour of his brother defendant No. 3, Fatu, in my opinion, is duly proved on the record and both the courts below, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on the record, had rightly come to the conclusion that Karmu had duly executed the Will in question in favour of his brother Fatu defendant. I am further of the opinion that no fault could be found with these findings of the courts below in respect of the validity of the Will in question. 11. At the time when the plaintiffs-appellants had filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court, three substantial questions of law were framed by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants. The first question was as to whether under the circumstances of the present case, the production of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 (Marriage Deeds) by the plaintiffs was not found from proper custody. The second question was if point No. 1 was proved, as to whether documents Exh.P1 and Exh.P-2 were not admissible and the third point was as to whether the learned District Judge was right in not considering the evidence independently with regard to the execution of the Will and should have only brushed aside the consideration to those factors by observing that other defendants who were also vitally interested in the subject-matter of the Will had not contested the same. At the time when the appeal was admitted to regular hearing, the appeal was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. At the time when the appeal was admitted to regular hearing, the appeal was admitted on the aforesaid substantial questions of law. So tar as the substantial questions No. 1 and 2 are concerned, as discussed above, both these questions have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, inasmuch as, it has been held by me above, that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 produced by the plaintiffs had come from proper custody and were admissible in evidence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. So far as the third question regarding validity of the Will in question is concerned, in my opinion, the said question has to be decided against the plaintiffs-appellants since the validity of the Will in question has already been found by me above to have been proved on the record. As referred to above, the trial Court had considered the entire evidence in detail while coming to the conclusion that the validity of the Will in question was proved on the record. So far as the lower appellate Court is concerned, the learned Additional District Judge after considering the entire evidence had opined that the reasonings advanced by the learned trial Court were in consonance with the evidence on the record. It was further held that more so the defendants had admitted the will in question in favour of defendant No. 3 and they had not assailed the finding of the trial Court in this regard even though they were materially affected by the impugned Will. In my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, nothing has come on the record to set aside the findings of the courts below with regard to the validity of the Will in question. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law, with regard to the validity of the Will in question, is decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. 12. No other point has been urged before me in his appeal. 13. In view of the detailed discussion above, I find no merit in this appeal, in view of the finding on Issue No. 2. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. -