Judgment Viney Mital, J. 1. Defendant No. 1 to 4 having concurrently lost before the two courts below, have approached this Court through the present regular second appeal. 2. Plaintiff, Kartar Kaur, filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction claiming that her husband, Balbir Singh, had 1/5th share in the suit land. After his death, the plaintiff had succeeded to the suit property. However, defendants were claiming some will in their favour which was never executed by Balbir Singh and, therefore, she filed the suit as mentioned above, 3. Defendants No. l to 4 contested the suit. It was claimed that Balbir Singh was their real uncle (Taya). The defendants also set up a registered will dated April 21, 1993 on the basis of which they claimed that they are owners of the suit property. They also claimed, that as per the aforesaid will Kartar Kaur was to get life estate left behind by Balbir Singh and, therefore, defendants were treated to be owners of the property in dispute. 4. The learned trial court on the basis of the material available on the record decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and appeal filed by the defendants before the learned first appellate Court failed. 5. Both the courts below have found it as a fact that the will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Although Balbir Singh was resident of Bura Gujjar, Tehsil and District Muktsar but the aforesaid will was shown to be executed in Rajasthan. The will was shown to be scribed by a regular deed writer but in his register no entry with regard to the will was made. In these circumstances, the learned first appellate court found it as a fact that the will set up by the defendants could not be relied upon. 6. Additionally, the learned first appellate court found that since under the will the property in question had been given to Kartar Kaur as a life estate, therefore, she on account of having pre-existing rights of maintenance of the suit property, her estate was to get enlarged by operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. 7. Shri Ashok Singla, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that once the life estate had been granted to Kartar Kaur, plaintiff under the will, then there was no question of application of Section 14(1) of the Act. 7. Shri Ashok Singla, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has vehemently argued that once the life estate had been granted to Kartar Kaur, plaintiff under the will, then there was no question of application of Section 14(1) of the Act. It has been argued that the case is squarely covered under Section 14(2) of the Act. The contention raised by the learned Counsel is of course meritorious. Once Kartar Kaur was shown to have inherited the life estate in the property left behind by Balbir Singh, then she would only acquire such interest in the suit property as had been granted to her under the will. In these circumstances, section 14(2) of the Act has to be applied and section 14(1) of the Act would have no application. However, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the learned first appellate court that the will itself was surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. Because of the aforesaid fact the will in question has been rejected by the learned first appellate Court. Once the will is taken to be surrounded by suspicious circumstances and is not proved to be duly executed by Balbir Singh during his life time, then question as to whether section 14(1) or section 14(2) of the Act applies is only of academic interest. 8. Nothing has been shown that the findings with regard to the will recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or contrary to the record. 9. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.