Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the subject property, was decreed by the learned trial Court but on an appeal by the respondents, the said judgment and decree has been set aside by the first appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002. 2. The dispute pertains to succession to the agricultural land owned by Jagir Singh. Jagir Singh, who was real brother of the respondents and uncle of the appellant, died unmarried and issueless on 19.5.1994. There is no dispute that after the death of Jagir Singh, the mutation for the land owned by him was sanctioned in favour of the respondents and the father of the appellant, in accordance with natural succession on 27.6.1995 and it was sanctioned at the instance and in the presence of the appellants father. 3. However, after a period of more than one year, the appellant came up with the plea that he is the exclusive owner in possession of the subject property, in view of a will executed on 11.5.1994 by the deceased Jagir Singh, It was claimed that the will was found by the appellant in the truck with which the appellant was employed as a "cleaner". 4. Accepting the genuineness of the will, the civil court decreed the appellants suit. The learned first appellate court, however, has reversed that finding and has dismissed the suit after observing that the will, Ex.P1, is surrounded by more than one suspicious circumstances including a glaring instance, i.e., spacing between initial 15 lines is more than the spacing in the last 6-7 lines. The first appellate court has, thus, suggested as ifthe will, Ex.P1, has been fabricated on some signed blank piece of paper. 5. The first appellate court has, thus, suggested as ifthe will, Ex.P1, has been fabricated on some signed blank piece of paper. 5. The evidence on record, which has also been noticed by the first appellate court in paragraphs 7 and 8 of its judgment, does suggest that in addition to the one strong suspicious circumstance noticed by the first appellate court, the will, Ex.P1, does not appear to be worth acceptable for a few more reasons that: (i) deceased Jagir Singh was resident of village Kang Mai whereas both the marginal witnesses are residents of village Barria and Jalandhar respectively; (ii) both the marginal witnesses are closely related to the appellant; (iii) no such will was produced by the appellant or his father at the earliest opportunity, especially when mutation of the subject property was sanctioned as per natural succession on 27.6.1995 at the instance and in presence of the appellants father; (iv) the appellant, in his cross-examination, has admitted the fact that the execution of the will by deceased Jagir Singh was in the knowledge of his father, yet the appellants father did not produce or plead the said will at the time of sanctioning of the mutation on 27.6.1995; (v) the manner and the place from where the will has been allegedly recovered, also casts doubts on its genuineness; (vi) no extra ordinary circumstances have been pleaded by the appellant to show that deceased Jagir Singh would have preferred to deprive his brother and sister from the subject property in preference to the appellant who is son of his anther brother, especially when both the parties have produced ration cards and other evidence to suggest that at one or the other point of time, the deceased Jagir Singh used to reside with them. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, the findings of fact returned by the learned first appellant court can neither be termed as perverse nor contrary to law. No case for interference is, thus, made out.