JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J.-The above appeals and the cross objections have arisen from the same judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby two Civil Suits bearing No.12 of 1981 (38-S/1 of 1985/1981) filed by Shri Gurudwara Laj Memorial Sabha and another Civil Suit No.6-S/1 of 1996/83 by Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and others, whereby both the suits were decided by the same judgment and decree passed on 16.1.1998. The civil suit No. 38-S/1 of 1995/1981 was dismissed and Civil Suit No. Civil Suit No.6-S/1 of 1996/83 (44 of 1983) supra was partly decreed for possession of a portion of Kothi shown in red ink in the plan attached to the plaint with a consequential relief of injunction qua the suit land detailed in para 4 of the plaint, whereas the relief for seeking damages was declined, thus the above appeals and the cross-objections have been taken up together for decision. Subject matter of dispute. In Civil Suit No.12 of 81 (38-S/1 of 1985/1981): 2. Building known as “Rockdene Estate” in Kh.No.667, Land bearing in passage in Khasra No. 665, 670 and 671, situated in village Badai, Kachi Ghati, Shimla and the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, 666, 674/1 and 703/1, kitas 8 measuring 2 Bighas 08 Biswas, entered in Jamabandi for the years 1974-75. In Civil Suit No.6-S/10 of 1996/1983 ( 44 of 83): 3. Land comprised in Khasra Nos.659, 665, 670, 671, 673, 678, 679/1 and 680, kitas 8 total, total measuring 6 Bighas 2 Biswas and two plots measuring 4 Bighas 8 Biswas in Khasra Nos.668 and 675, three plots measuring 1 Bigha 3 Biswas in Khasra No.670, 672 and 674 AND nine Plots measuring 2-17 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos.660 to 665, 667, 671/1 and 703/1 per Jamabandi for the years 1979-80 as mentioned in para 4 of the plaint, hereinafter to be referred as the ‘land in dispute’. Background of the Case. 4. The land in suit was originally owned by Sardar Ajit Singh. After his death it was inherited by his widow Sardarani Lajwanti, who remained in its possession till her death in the year 1970. She was issueless. Background of the Case. 4. The land in suit was originally owned by Sardar Ajit Singh. After his death it was inherited by his widow Sardarani Lajwanti, who remained in its possession till her death in the year 1970. She was issueless. After her death, Nanak Singh Gandhi defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No. 6-S/1 of 1996/83 son of late Shri Pritam Singh earlier to the present had filed Civil Suit No.8 of 1980 (Ex.D3) against Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral plaintiff No.2 and Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha (Plaintiff No.8) bearing Civil Suit No. 6-S/1 of 1996/83 above through its president Shri Darshan Singh Sethi impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh as a proforma respondent, seeking declaration to the effect that he had acquired the right of ownership by way of adverse possession qua the land owned by Smt. Lajwanti and sought the consequential relief of injunction against Gurudwara Singh Sabha in respect of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 660, 661 to 664, 666, 667, 674/1 and 703/1 kita 9 measuring 2-17 Bighas to which he claimed possession and the said land was in possession of Lajwanti as an occupancy tenant. Precisely his case in the earlier suit was that he had migrated from Tehsil Dehra and started looking after said Smt. Lajwanti. Since Lajwanti was issueless and there was no other near relation to look after in her old age, in appreciation of the services rendered by him, she agreed to hand over the possession of the entire land in dispute to him for cultivation, somewhere in the year 1967 so that she could maintain herself of the income accrued there from. Thereafter Nanak Singh took over the complete charge of the land in dispute and reclaimed the land and raised an orchard and also made some additional and alterations. 5. It was also his case that the main house remained in his possession and he used to rent out, its portion to the tenants even during her life time and also thereafter. His relations with deceased Lajwanti remained like her son. Said Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral (an IFS Officer) was not seen in and around during her life time. He remained on deputation to the foreign country. His relations with deceased Lajwanti remained like her son. Said Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral (an IFS Officer) was not seen in and around during her life time. He remained on deputation to the foreign country. It was also averred that in the year 1978 the store and building standing on khasra No.667 with its open front was converted into Gurudwara for the general public for worship along with a passage in khasra No.665. Thus Gurudwara Singh Sabha was established thereon to enabling the inhabitants of the village and others to perform their daily prayers. It was alleged that said Sabha had tried to grab the whole property and started causing interference into the adjoining land and house. On 19.1.1980, the Sabha forcefully occupied the adjoining room and threatened to dispossess him from the remaining property. He then requested the Tehsildar for recording him in possession in the revenue record either as occupancy or non-occupancy tenant and prayed for a decree in his favour as aforesaid. 6. Only the Gurudwara Singh Sabha (defendant No.2) contested the suit and had filed written statement Ex. PX-3, assailing the locus-standi of Nanak Singh to file the suit and denied his claim in toto. It was specifically averred that by a Will of Sardar Ajit Singh husband of Sardarni Lajwanti the entire property bequeathed in her favour, was to be utilized only for religious purposes, thus she was not competent to create, vest or divest any right in any person. Further, the legatee had also made a provision for her maintenance, thus she was not in need of any personal services as alleged and prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 7. It shall be pertinent to note that an application (Ex.PZ) was also moved by Nanak Singh in the earlier suit restraining the defendants Rajinder Singh Gujral and Gurudwara Singh Sabha, from causing any interference in his possession, which was allowed by the then Sub Judge. His orders were challenged in appeal and ultimately the matter went to the High Court. In the revision petition vide its order Ex.DW13/W, dated 11.12.1980, the High Court on the concession of the parties deleted the name of defendant No.1. Rajinder Singh Gujral who was stated to be abroad on a ‘foreign assignment’. His orders were challenged in appeal and ultimately the matter went to the High Court. In the revision petition vide its order Ex.DW13/W, dated 11.12.1980, the High Court on the concession of the parties deleted the name of defendant No.1. Rajinder Singh Gujral who was stated to be abroad on a ‘foreign assignment’. The remaining parties mutually agreed by making a statement at bar to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in the application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Thus the High Court on 11.12.1980 ordered that ‘the possession of either of the party be not disturbed and they would also not cause any interference or obstruction to Granthi for using glazed veranda as a passage, which was in occupation of the plaintiff Nanak Singh’. The order is Ex.DW13/W on record. 8. Later, the earlier suit filed by Nanak Singh was withdrawn on 10.3.1981 by him, with a permission to file afresh, but no such suit was filed by him, again. 9. However, then in the year 1981 a Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 was filed on 17.3.1981 in the High Court by ”Shri Guru Lal Ajit Memorial Sabha” through its president Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi, only against Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha and later arrayed Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust as defendant, which was thereafter assigned to the learned District Judge for its disposal as it fell within his jurisdiction as it fell in his jurisdiction on account of amendment in enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction, it was then registered as Suit No.38-S/1 of 1981 in his court. Facts of Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 (38-S/1 of 1981. 10. The plaintiff Gurudwara Lal Ajit Memorial Sabha through its President Nanak Singh in its plaint averred that Sardarni Lajwanti w/o Sardar Ajit Singh, the owner of the suit property, had died issueless in the month of May, 1970. As per her wishes, said Nanak Singh Gandhi, established a Gurudwara on a portion of the land in dispute, with a view to open such a Gurudwara for general public, thus he constituted a Gurudwara Committee consisting of five members including himself as its President. The said committee was got registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Nanak Singh, its President was authorised to institute the suit. The said committee was got registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Nanak Singh, its President was authorised to institute the suit. It was also averred that ‘Gurudwara Singh’ Sabha failed to manage the Gurudwara properly and one of its portion was converted for the enjoyment of the family of its office bearers, the electricity charges were not paid, which caused the disconnection of the electric meters. However, it was got restored by Nanak Singh aforesaid. The defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha did not take any interest rather misutilized the property. The plaintiff also gave a reference of earlier suit filed by Nanak Singh, which was withdrawn on 10.3.1981 with a liberty to file the fresh suit on the same cause of action. It was averred that the temporary injunction was granted in his favour in the earlier suit, but the said orders were defied and a contempt petition was also filed against the Gurudwara Singh Sabha. It was further averred that the possession of the Gurudwara including its passage was not handed over to the Plaintiff- Society but it was unauthorisedly used as a picnicspot. Hence sought the decree, for possession of the portion of building, known as “Rock Dene Estate”, existing over khasra No.667 and the passage through khasra No.665, 670 and 671 and also the relief of injunction qua other portion of the land in dispute. PLEA OF DEFEDNANTS 11. The Gurudwara Singh Sabha defendant No.1 had put in appearance through its President Darshan Singh and resisted and contested the suit. In its written statement dated 16.4.1981. It raised the preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit and took up the objection that without complying with the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was not competent inter-alia valuation and jurisdiction. It was specifically averred that the plaintiffs had no legal and enforceable right, and raised the plea of estoppel and categorically denied the possession of the plaintiff in any capacity. It was further pleaded that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh and Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral. 12. On merits, it was further averred that the defendant Sabha set up the Will of Sardar Ajit Singh dated 2.2.1965 whereby he had created a Trust of the estate owned and possessed by him. One Sh. 12. On merits, it was further averred that the defendant Sabha set up the Will of Sardar Ajit Singh dated 2.2.1965 whereby he had created a Trust of the estate owned and possessed by him. One Sh. Lakhwinder Singh in his becoming incapable Bakhria Shiv Charan Dass, was approved as the executor. Lajwanti was provided maintenance and after her death the property was to be handed over to a charitable Trust. It was denied that Smt. Lajwanti had ever expressed her will to establish a Gurudwara. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff committee was the creation of mischievous design of Sardar Nanak Singh Gandhi who intended to grab the entire property. His authority to represent the said Society was also disputed. It was specifically averred that Ajit Singh the husband of the Lajwanti was an absolute owner of the land in dispute who had executed his last Will as aforesaid. It was pleaded that after the death of Ajit Singh, trustees aforesaid instead of providing maintenance to Lajwanti, allowed her to maintain herself out of the property in question, but the ownership never devolved on her, however, on her death, Rajinder Singh Gujral tried to lay his claim on the trust property and appointed Nanak Singh Gandhi as a caretaker. Thus, Bakhsi Shiv Charan was approached by the said defendants to accomplish the object of the last Will executed by Sardar Ajit Singh. Bakshi Shiv Charan Singh supplied the copy of the Will to them and delivered the possession of the land in suit in July, 1978, thus the defendant acquired its full control and thereafter they established the Gurudwara and employed Granthi and other workers. They were also provided the residences in the said property. It was also pleaded that Parveen Singh brother of Nanak Singh Gandhi was also employed as a Sevadar who was residing in the same premises alongwith his brother Nanak Singh. In nut-shell, the defendant Guru Singh Sabha denied the plaintiff to be legal entity, thus not authorised to manage the affairs of the charitable trust. The other averments made in the plaint were totally denied. It was alleged that the withdrawal of the earlier suit, filed by Nanak Singh, was because of the reason that it was a false claim stacked by him. The other averments made in the plaint were totally denied. It was alleged that the withdrawal of the earlier suit, filed by Nanak Singh, was because of the reason that it was a false claim stacked by him. He took back the documents filed with the plaint and never bothered to file the suit again on the same cause of action because of the liberty given to him. However he devised a novel method by creating a fake society challenging the right of the defendant to manage the property and by pleading the on the wrong facts. It was pleaded that the defendant-trust raised the donations for the establishment of the School in the property in dispute to fulfil the object of the trust deed. In nut-shell the claim of the plaintiff is totally denied and sought dismissal of the suit. In replication, the plaintiff had denied the preliminary objections and even paras of the merits were re-affirmed. 13. The case was adjourned for the statement of the parties before the settlement of issues on 16.9.1981. The Statement of Shri Nanak Singh, President of the plaintiff’s Society, was recorded. Precisely, he made the statement on 16.9.81 that Smt. Lajwanti had died issueless, therefore, the property stood escheated to the State. 14. Thus a preliminary issue was formed that in view of the statement of the President of Plaintiff’s Society recorded above, the plaintiff has locus standi to maintain the suit? Thereafter, vide order dated 3.12.1981, this Court observed that the plaintiff had claimed two reliefs in respect of two properties in paras 10(a) and 10(b), therefore, the matter cannot be disposed of on the preliminary issue, thus, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 3.12.1981:- 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the presentform for the reasons stated in para 1 of the preliminary objections contained in the written statement? 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct and acts from filing this suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff put the defendant in possession of the property detailed in para 10(a) of the plaint? 5. If issue No.4 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled topossession in espect of the said property? 6. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own conduct and acts from filing this suit? 4. Whether the plaintiff put the defendant in possession of the property detailed in para 10(a) of the plaint? 5. If issue No.4 is proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled topossession in espect of the said property? 6. Whether the plaintiff is in possession in respect of he property mentioned in para 10(b) of the laint? If so, is the plaintiff entitled to the injunction prayed for in respect of the said property? 7. Relief. 15. Vide order dated 8.10.1984, the present suit and Civil Suit No.44 of 1983 were consolidated and the proceedings were recorded in the present suit i.e. Suit No.12 of 1981 and it was ordered that the preliminary issues framed in civil suit No.44 of 1983 on the basis of the application filed on 3.4.1984 stood disposed of. It is pertinent to note that another Civil Suit No.44 of 1983 was filed in the High Court by Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust through Smt. Kasbir Kaur Kochhar, Rajinder Singh Gujral and Sh. Darshan Singh President of Gurudwara Singh Sabha and also by Smt. Jasbir Kaur in her personal capacity against Nanak Singh Gandhi, Praveen Singh and Shri Gurudwara Lal Ajit Memorial Sabha (plaintiff in Civil Suit No.38-S/1 of 1985/81) and also Devi Chand, Ram Dass, Smt. Roshni Devi, Jiwan Singh, Pritpal Singh, Mehtab Singh, Narinder Singh and Devi Parshad members of Gurudwara Ajit Lal Memorial Sabha, whereas, Giani Iqbal Singh Kingra, Smt. Surjit Kalra, Jagat Singh and Gurudwara Singh Sabha were impleaded as proforma defendants, who were later ordered be transposed to be arrayed as the plaintiffs vide order dated 2.9.1983. Vide order dated 17.3.1984, passed in Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 (38-S/1 of 1985/81) on the application (OMP No.479 of 83) the Court ordered to implead “Ajit Lal Gujral Trust” as defendant No.2. Facts of Civil Suit No.44 of 1983 (6-S/1 of 1996/1983) Thus suit was filed in the High Court on 19th May, 1983 by Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and others during the pendency of C.S. No.12 of 1981 (C.S. No.38-S/1 of 1981), against Nanak Singh Gandhi and others detailed above, seeking decree for possession and permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the land in dispute. 16. 16. In brief, the averments made in the plaint were that after the death of Smt. Lajwanti the sole owner, the property devolved in Rajinder Singh Gujral as her sole legal heir on the basis of Will, dated 2.2.1968 duly executed by her, during her lifetime which was registered before the Sub-Registrar Kasumpti on 2nd January, 1970. It was pleaded that Sardarni Lajwanti was exclusive owner in possession of the property and it was averred that Sardar Ajit Singh, his wife Lajwanti and plaintiff No.2 Sardar Rajinder Singh Gujral were desirous of doing some public charitable work, thus, plaintiff No.2 ( Rajinder Singh Gujral) with a view to establish a Sikh Gurudwara and to establish a ‘Khalsa Public School’ created a trust known as “Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust”, through a deed of trust executed on 4th July, 1982 at Shimla and got it registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla on 5th July, 1982 by which it conveyed and transferred in favour of the said trust the properties mentioned in para-4 of the plaint i.e. the land in dispute. Thus, the said trust became its owner through its trustees. Since Rajinder Singh Gujral aforesaid had a foreign assignment with United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), it was not possible for him to personally look after and manage the property, therefore, with a view to properly manage the property, he engaged the services of Sardar Nanak Singh (defendant No.1) as a Caretaker of the said property who had been looking after the entire property for sometime. It was alleged that for the last three years, Nanak Singh started laying the false claim to the property and started repudiating the title of plaintiff No.2 of which he came to know in the year 1982 when he happened to visit India during his leave. Since Nanak Singh was living with his brother, he was appointed as Caretaker by plaintiff No.2 he manipulated to form a bogus society in the name for defendant No.1 and got it registered. He also unlawfully occupied the main portion of the Kothi by breaking open the lock and took some articles lying inside the said Kothi shown in the red ink in the plan attached. It was also averred that the rest of the portion of the property remained in occupation of plaintiff No.2. He also unlawfully occupied the main portion of the Kothi by breaking open the lock and took some articles lying inside the said Kothi shown in the red ink in the plan attached. It was also averred that the rest of the portion of the property remained in occupation of plaintiff No.2. The property standing on it comprising in khasra Nos.670/1, 672 and 674 remained in possession of M/s By ford Private Limited as a tenant of plaintiff No.2. Their tenancy was determined by him, but their possession was not delivered despite notice thus separate suit was contemplated against them. It was also averred that remaining portion of the property remained in possession of the plaintiff society through its trustees and proforma efendants. The plaintiffs alleged the interference into their possession by the defendants without any authority. The plaintiff claimed the possession of the property mentioned in para No.7(a) of the plaint and permanent prohibitory injunction qua the remaining land and also laid the claim of Rs.6,000/- as damages for the use and occupation of the property and future damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. 17. The suit was contested by the defendants and in their written statement, dated 18.11.1983 verified by Sh. Nanak Singh Gandhi defendant No.1, raised their preliminary objections that a previously instituted civil suit No.12/1981 (38- S/1 of 81) was pending in the court, in which the matters in issue directly and substantially were the same and the instant suit is hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deserved to be stayed. Defendants also raised the objection of estoppel and on merits admitted that Lajwanti wife of Sardar Ajit Singh was owner of the suit property and she continued as such till her death. The Will alleged to have been executed by her on 2.2.1968 is specifically denied. The possession of the plaintiff as alleged is denied by them. It is specifically averred that Nanak Singh defendant remained in possession of the suit property during the lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti and after her death established a Gurudwara as per her wishes on a portion of her property which is alleged to be in unauthorised possession of Gurudwara Singh Sabha, the plaintiff No.3. It is specifically averred that Nanak Singh defendant remained in possession of the suit property during the lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti and after her death established a Gurudwara as per her wishes on a portion of her property which is alleged to be in unauthorised possession of Gurudwara Singh Sabha, the plaintiff No.3. It is admitted that the said Sabha constituted a Committee to look after and maintain the Gurudwara, however, in the month of July, 1978, defendant No.3 requested Gurudwara Singh Sabha to maintain the affairs of Gurudwara on the portion of the property in dispute, in the interest of general worshippers. It was specifically agreed that in case Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha failed to maintain the affairs of Gurudwara, they would take back the management from Gurudwara Singh Sabha. Thereafter, in the month of January, 1980, when it was found that Shri Gurudwara Singh Sabha was mismanaging the affairs of the Gurudwara and not maintaining it for the best interests of the worshippers and had failed to make the payment of the electricity and water bills, Gurudwara Singh Sabha was requested to stop to run the management and handover the possession of the premises of the Gurudwara, but in turn, defendant No.3 threatened to take the forcibly possession of the entire property, as such Nanak Singh defendant No.1 had filed a civil suit No.8 of 1980 Ex.D3 seeking declaration and the relief of injunction as mentioned in ground No.3, which was later on withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit. This liberty was granted on 10.3.1981. 18. On an application for temporary injunction, the Sub Judge had visited the spot and found defendant No.1 in possession of the suit property and recorded in his order dated 5.4.1980. It was further averred that after the withdrawal from the court of subordinate Judge, a fresh civil suit No.12 of 1981 was filed. It is important to note that Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 was filed by Gurudwara Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha and not by Nanak Singh in his individual capacity. Rest of the contents were denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 19. The statements of Nanak Singh and Praveen Singh his defendant brother were recorded on 3.4.1984 before settlement of issues, in Zimni orders part at pages A9 and A10 in file of C.S. No.44 of 83. Rest of the contents were denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 19. The statements of Nanak Singh and Praveen Singh his defendant brother were recorded on 3.4.1984 before settlement of issues, in Zimni orders part at pages A9 and A10 in file of C.S. No.44 of 83. Precisely, Nanak Singh on oath claimed his possession over the suit land except two rooms which were in possession of Gurudwara Singh Sabha since 1980 and stated that he used to cultivate the agricultural land since 1966-67. He had no relationship with Smt. Lajwanti. In 197677 he constituted the Society which was registered. He admitted the filing and withdrawal of his earlier suit. He admitted to have taken back the documents filed in the earlier suit, which were again filed in C.S. No.12 of 1981. He denied having sent any letter to Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral. Further according to him, Lajwanti had expressed her desire to establish a Gurudwara in the said Kothi and Holy Guru Granth Sahib was kept even during her life time in one of the room. 20. In nutshell Praveen Singh stated that he is member of the committee constituted by Nanak Singh, his real brother, which was registered in the year 1980. He denied letter Mark E. He was a honorary Sewadar and living in the said Gurudwara but did not claim any right in the suit property. The defendants had also filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (OMP No.6 of 1996) for staying the suit. Vide order dated 8.10.1984, the request was allowed and both the civil suits were consolidated and the proceedings were ordered to be recorded in Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 (38-S/1 of 1981). Consequently, the preliminary issue framed in Civil Suit No.44 of 1983 stood disposed of and in both the suits, the following additional issues were framed: 1. Whether Smt. Lajwanti deceased, the previous owner of the property in dispute executed a valid will bequeathing the property in favour of Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral, plaintiff No.2? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct in filing the present suit? 3. Whether and if so to what amount are the plaintiffs entitled on account of damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute and from whom? 21. Thereafter both the civil suits were listed for evidence. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct in filing the present suit? 3. Whether and if so to what amount are the plaintiffs entitled on account of damages for use and occupation of the property in dispute and from whom? 21. Thereafter both the civil suits were listed for evidence. During the proceedings of the case Shri Darshan Singh plaintiff No.3 in Civil Suit No.44 of 1983 had expired and his legal representatives were brought on record. In between the defendants in civil suit No.44 of 1983 moved an application OMP No.270 of 1986 seeking the amendment in the written statement, which was dismissed, but in appeal, it was allowed, as such, the defendants filed an amended written statement whereby Nanak Singh claimed the said land in dispute as tenant on having been inducted as such by Smt. Lajwanti during her lifetime. Thus vide order dated 1.6.1987, one more additional issue was framed:- 6(a) Whether Nanak Singh has been in possession of the property in suit as tenant on being inducted as such by Smt. Lajwanti during her life time. If so to what effect? (O.P. Nanak Singh). 22. Earlier in civil suit No.12 of 1981, the plaintiff had led its evidence and examined Nanak Singh as PW1, Praveen Singh as PW2, Shadi Ram as PW3 Het Ram as PW4 and Darshan Singh Sethi as PW5. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the Gurudwara Singh Sabha and Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust in Suit No.12 of 1981 to the effect that since S/Shri Nanak Singh, President of plaintiff Sabha and also his brother Praveen Singh, who appeared as witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff had denied the signatures on the certain documents described in the said application in para-3, a direction was sought to sign their name in the court for the comparison and examination of their signatures by the Handwriting Expert. The request was allowed vide order dated 21.8.1987 and the Court directed that Nanak Singh shall attend the office of Registrar (Vigilance) of this court on 28.8.1987 for obtaining his signatures by him in his presence duly attested under his certificate where after the specimen signatures of Nanak Singh along with documents mentioned in para-3 or such of the documents thereof which the defendant wanted to send it for examination would be sent forthwith to the Government Examiner of Questions Documents. The order was complied with. Report of the Expert was received, but the plaintiff failed to produce the remaining witnesses, therefore, on 1.1.1988, the counsel for the plaintiff in civil Suit No.12 of 1981 made the statement that he would examine remaining witnesses in rebuttal after the evidence of the defendant is closed and closed the evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, the defendant examined DW1 Rajinder Singh Gujral, DW2 H.S. Kaushal, DW3 Dr. B.R. Nanda, DW4 Kangru Ram, DW5 Gurbachan Singh, DW6 S.P. Kapoor, PW7 Swaroop Singh, PW8 Jagat Singh, PW9 Joginder Lal, PW10 Dr. Radha Krishan, PW11 Sardar Makhan Singh, PW12 Mohan Singh and PW13 Baldev Singh. 23. In rebuttal, plaintiff examined Darshan Singh Sethi and tendered in evidence copies of jamabandies Ex.PZ1 and PZ2 and certified copy of mutation Ex.PZ3 and closed the evidence before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla to whom the case was later transferred. 24. After hearing the arguments, learned District Judge dismissed the Civil Suit No.12 of 1981 (C.S. 38-S/1 of 1985/81) and partly decreed the other suit No.6 of 81 (C.S.44- S/1 of 1985/81) stated as above. Contention in Appeal RFA No.28 of 98. 25. Against the dismissal of Suit No.38-S/1 of 1985/81, Shri Gurudwara Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha through its President Nanak Singh Gandhi plaintiff having felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court , precisely, on the grounds that their oral as well as documentary evidence was conveniently ignored by the learned trial court and it also wrongly held the mutation No.813 dated 19.6.1995 Ex.PZ3 in favour of the plaintiff conferring the proprietary rights were wrong, illegal without jurisdiction, without taking into consideration the order Ex. PXX dated 5.3.1983/15.7.1986. It was also contended that the plaintiff was found to be in actual possession even by the Sub Judge during the spot inspection as recorded in his order Ex. PZ, and the trial court failed to consider the fact. 26. It is also contended that the defendant No.1 asserted the Will of Ajit Singh whereas in their suit a complete summersault was taken by pleading the Will of Smt. Lajwanti and her original will which was set up by the defendant was also not produced and the so-called scribe had failed to identify even the copy produced in court. The testimonies of so-called marginal witnesses were not worth inspiring confidence. The testimonies of so-called marginal witnesses were not worth inspiring confidence. It was also averred that Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral never came forward with the said will of Lajwanti for more than 13 years which also made this document as a suspect. Thus, relying upon this document by the learned trial Court and giving findings against them on all the issues were incorrect and liable to the set-aside. 27. Contention in RFA No.29 of 1998 Defendants in Suit No.6-S/1 of 1996/83(44 of 1983), namely Shri Nanak Singh Gandhi, his brother Parveen Singh and Gurudwara Lal Ajit Memorial Sabha, through its President Nanak Singh assailed the judgment and decree passed against them in RFA No.29 of 1998, precisely on the same grounds as taken in RFA No.28 of 1998 and further contended that the learned trial court committed a grave error on placing undue reliance on the so-called letters written by Rajinder Singh Gujral to Nanak Singh and also the letters of Praveen Singh, in the absence of any authenticated evidence and the report of the handwriting expert was incorrect based upon the material which was not sufficient to come to the proper conclusion as stated by him, thus and the learned trial court came to a wrong conclusion against them. Shri Ajit Lajwanti Gujral Trust and others have also filed Cross Objections No.123 of 1998 with respect to issue No.3 whereby their claim for damages was declined. Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, duly assisted by Shri Harish Behal, Advocate, raised the following contentions: (i) That Nanak Singh was inducted as a tenant qua the agricultural land by Smt. Lajwanti. During the pendency of the previous suit, he had also moved an application for correction of revenue entries and as per the position on the spot the entries were ultimately corrected vide order Ext.PXX in his favour and he was ordered to be recorded as the tenant of the land in dispute. The defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha had moved an application for impleading it as a party in those proceedings, which was dismissed and this dismissal order was not further agitated by him. The order Ext.PXX for correction in favour of Nanak Singh had become final, which was never challenged by anyone including Rajinder Singh Gujral. Nanak Singh had acquired the proprietary rights in accordance with law under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The order Ext.PXX for correction in favour of Nanak Singh had become final, which was never challenged by anyone including Rajinder Singh Gujral. Nanak Singh had acquired the proprietary rights in accordance with law under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. By not impleading him as a party on the application filed by the appellant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in appeal, no effective adjudication could be done. (ii) The Will Ex.D2 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Lajwanti in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral qua the suit property is not a genuine document. The original will was not produced. The evidence led by the defendant is contradictory, surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, therefore, findings against them recorded by the learned trial court are incorrect, hence deserves to be set aside. To counter the above contention, Shri Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, for the defendants duly assisted by Ms. Charu Gupta vehemently argued that Nanak Singh only claimed in possession in his previous suit did not specifically claim himself to be the tenant of the agricultural land. The earlier suit was withdrawn as per the liberty granted to him, but Nanak Singh never filed the suit again. Thus, he cannot be arrayed as a party in appeal also, whereas, he knew the orders of the earlier proceedings and he in his capacity as President of the Society had filed the suit under his own verification. Further the subsequent suit filed by the Society of which he claimed himself to be the President nowhere asserted as to how the said Society had acquired the title of the suit property. There has been no allegation against Rajinder Singh Gujral respondent No.2 in civil suit No.12/1981 which was amended in the year 1984 impleading him as defendant. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the statement of Nanak Singh recorded on 3.4.1984 in Suit No.44 of 1981. He also referred to the provision of Land Records Manual governing the correction of revenue entries and contended that his statement recorded in the court goes contrary to the plea of tenancy as alleged. The learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the statement of Nanak Singh recorded on 3.4.1984 in Suit No.44 of 1981. He also referred to the provision of Land Records Manual governing the correction of revenue entries and contended that his statement recorded in the court goes contrary to the plea of tenancy as alleged. The learned counsel also referred to the statements on record of Praveen Singh in order to show that Nanak Singh never remained in possession of the property as tenant nor he was at any point of time inducted as tenant by Lajwanti. According to him, the basic order passed by the Tehsildar was wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction, thus, the conferment of proprietary rights upon Nanak Singh were also wrong and illegal. There was no relation of landlord and tenant inter-se the parties at any point of time, therefore, there was no question of tenancy in favour of Nanak Singh. 28. The learned counsel further argued that the permission was also sought under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, for leading the secondary evidence, but according to him, since the carbon copy of the original Will is a primary document which was produced and proved on record in accordance with law therefore, there was no need to lead secondary evidence. Further the plaintiffs in the suit have no locus-standi to assail the Will and therefore strangers to the estate, thus they cannot challenge the legality of the Will in any manner. The learned counsel concluded that the tenancy in favour of the plaintiff is not proved at all. The defendants were able to prove the Will in question by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence and the appellants even otherwise cannot challenge the Will as stated above, therefore their appeal deserved to be dismissed. He further argued that the learned trial court had wrongly dismissed the claim for damages which otherwise should have been awarded. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contents of the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record. 29. The case law cited by the parties shall be referred at the relevant stages while discussing the points raised. Now I proceed to deal with the first contention raised by the appellants. The plaintiff examined Nanak Singh as PW1 in his capacity as President of the Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha. 29. The case law cited by the parties shall be referred at the relevant stages while discussing the points raised. Now I proceed to deal with the first contention raised by the appellants. The plaintiff examined Nanak Singh as PW1 in his capacity as President of the Laj Ajit Memorial Sabha. According to him, he was living with Smt. Lajwanti, the owner of the land in dispute and she used to treat him as her son. At her instance, he started cultivating the land w.e.f. 1966-67, which was worth it and Smt. Lajwanti used to take some share in the produce as per her requirement, but there was no agreement to that effect. After her death in the month of May, 1970, he performed all her ritual ceremonies. He stated that it was her last wish that some religious institution should be constructed on her land. Thus after her death, he formed a Committee of certain persons from his neighbourhood and collected funds for the construction of Gurudwara. The building was raised in the residential house of Lajwanti. 30. Thereafter the society aforesaid transferred the management of the Gurudwara constructed on the land to defendant No.1 in favour of Gurudwara Singh Sabha in the year 1978 vide Resolution Ex.PW1/A1, passed on 23rd July, 1978. Thereafter the said Sabha started managing the said property, but the plaintiff Society assumed the control of the management from the said Sabha in the year 1979 as the affairs of the Gurudwara was not properly managed, but no resolution was passed to this effect. He further stated that in the year 1980, in his absence the said Sabha forcibly occupied the said property and on coming to know above the same, he lodged a report with the police, but no action was taken by the police. Thereafter, he filed a civil suit in the court at Shimla against the said Sabha, which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one. He placed on record the certified copy of the Plaint Ex.D1. He further stated that the documents filed with the suit were returned to him on his application Ex.D2. He admitted having received the letters from Rajinder Singh Gujral, which according to him, he used to pass it on to his brother for necessary action, but he denied that he was appointed as Care-taker of the property in dispute by Rajinder Singh Gujral. He admitted having received the letters from Rajinder Singh Gujral, which according to him, he used to pass it on to his brother for necessary action, but he denied that he was appointed as Care-taker of the property in dispute by Rajinder Singh Gujral. He also denied that Praveen Singh his brother was an employee of the defendant Sabha, which is contrary to his statement recorded before framing the issues in the court. In his further statement recorded on 25.6.1987, he deposed that the property in dispute was in his possession as a tenant inducted by Smt. Lajwanti in the presence of Devi Chand, Het Ram, Pritam Singh and Duli Chand Verma, whereas this fact was not pleaded by him in his earlier suit. He further stated that he moved an application for recording his entry in the revenue record and the Assistant Collector IInd Grade passed the order Ex.PXX on 15.7.1986 in his favour. In his cross-examination, he stated that he visited Shimla for the first time in the year 1966. One of his relations was known to Smt. Lajwanti, who had introduced him to her. 31. There after, he started serving and living with her. He also stated that the aforesaid persons in whose presence he was inducted as a tenant were previously known to him, but he did not know as to who had called them there in the house of Smt. Lajwanti. He further stated that no definite rent was fixed at that time and he did not know as to who was cultivating the said land prior to the said date. He further stated that he never made any correspondence with Rajinder Singh Gujral, but he had heard about him that he was employed in the Forest Corporation of Himachal Pradesh. He has admitted the certified copy of Ex.D3 of the plaint filed by him in the earlier suit. He further stated that although he had seen the certified copy of the letters marked ‘A’ to ‘D’ purported to have been written by Rajinder Singh Gujral to him, but he expressed his inability to say whether he had filed those documents in the previous suit. He however admitted that he used to receive the letters from Rajinder Singh Gujral. He denied that he was appointed as a Caretaker by Rajinder Singh Gujral. He however admitted that he used to receive the letters from Rajinder Singh Gujral. He denied that he was appointed as a Caretaker by Rajinder Singh Gujral. He further stated that he did not know whether any summon or notice was issued on the application for correction of revenue entries to Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral or defendant Sabha. He also stated that Smt. Lajwanti during her lifetime did not execute the receipt in his favour in token of receipt of the rent received by her. He could not say whether he started claiming himself as a tenant on the property of Smt. Lajwanti during the pendency of this suit and never prior to that. He admitted that the Revenue authorities had initiated the escheating proceedings in respect of the property in dispute after the death of Smt. Lajwanti and he had been putting appearance in those proceedings. He categorically admitted that at that time, he was claiming that he was in the adverse possession of that property. It is pertinent to note that he did not claim his tenancy as projected by him at a later stage in these proceedings. 32. PW2 Praveen Singh is the brother of Nanak Singh. He stated that during the lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti, Nanak Singh used to cultivate the land attached to the estate and Lajwanti had been taking a part of the produce of the land as per her requirement, but however there was no specific agreement. He further stated that there was no person when this settlement was made. He also stated that after the death of Lajwanti, Nanak Singh remained in the possession of her estate. According to him he visited Shimla in the year 1968 and stayed with his brother Nanak Singh. He had seen the Gurudwara being installed in the estate since then. He further stated that a Society was constituted in the year 1971 to manage the affairs of Gurudwara. Nanak Singh was the President and he was the Secretary. In July, 1978, the management was transferred to defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha. In January, 1980, they voluntarily surrendered the management of the Gurudwara, but however, the defendant Sabha started tress-passing in the other portion of the Society, it was then Nanak Singh had filed a civil suit in the court of Sub Judge at Shimla and also lodged a report in the Police Station. In January, 1980, they voluntarily surrendered the management of the Gurudwara, but however, the defendant Sabha started tress-passing in the other portion of the Society, it was then Nanak Singh had filed a civil suit in the court of Sub Judge at Shimla and also lodged a report in the Police Station. In his cross-examination, he stated that a portion of estate in question was leased out to M/s Byfords Private Limited. There were servant quarters also located within the estate. The area under cultivation was about 11 bighas. He further stated that he knew Rajinder Singh Gujral since 1972 and he was exchanging correspondence with him. He further admitted that Shri Gujral used to right letters to Nanak Singh and he used to send the replies on behalf of Nanak Singh, even on his address when he was residing in Iran. He further stated that he used to instruct the lawyer engaged by Nanak Singh in the previous suit filed against defendant Sabha in the year 1980. He also admitted that four letters received by Nanak Singh from Rajinder Singh Gujral were also produced in that case on behalf of Nanak Singh. The suit was ultimately withdrawn and all the documents filed in that suit were also taken back by their counsel, who returned it to Shri Nanak Singh. He further stated that he had written all those letters which had been filed in the court and then taken back. He further stated that those original letters might be either with him or his counsel. He was confronted with the contents of the letters marked ‘A’,’B’,’C’ and ‘D’ but he could not say whether these were the copies of the letters filed by Nanak Singh plaintiff in the earlier suit. He further stated that they had been denying the claim of Rajinder Singh Gujral and it was on that account that he used to right letters to them that he would compromise with them with respect to the suit property. He denied that he was appointed as a Sewadar of Gurudwara by defendant Sabha. He was confronted with the entries ‘A1’ to ‘A6’ in the salary register marked ‘X1’ and according to him, it did not contain his signature. He denied that he was appointed as a Sewadar of Gurudwara by defendant Sabha. He was confronted with the entries ‘A1’ to ‘A6’ in the salary register marked ‘X1’ and according to him, it did not contain his signature. However, he stated that he had been previously working as a labour/Sewadar at the Gurudwara, Cart Road, Shimla under the supervision of defendant Singh Sabha, but he was not their employee. He further stated that he knew Chandrika. He was a servant of Lajwanti. 33. PW3 Shadi Ram stated that the land in dispute owned by Lajwanti remained under cultivation of Nank Singh for the last about 14 years, but he did not know in which capacity. It is important to note his cross-examination, he stated that he did not see this land being cultivated by Nanak Singh during lifetime of Smt. Lajwanti. 34. PW4 Het Ram has stated that about 21 years ago, he was present in the house of Lajwanti when she had asked Nanak Singh to cultivate the land and in lieu thereof he was to provide her vegetables and grain grown on this land. In cross-examination, he stated that at that time he wasn service of Government Press of India at Shimla as Bookbinder. It was holiday when he was passing-by the house of Smt. Lajwanti. During mid-day she asked him to sit down for a while. He did not know Nanak Singh at that time nor he enquired about him from Smt. Lajwanti. He had seen Nanak Singh living over there with Smt. Lajwanti for the last about 2-3 years prior to that. Earlier Smt. Lajwanti used to get this land cultivated by employing the labour. He denied that no such agreement or talks were ever held for cultivating the land, as alleged. 35. PW5 Darshan Sethi, a Manager of M/s Byfords Private Limited, Tara Devi, Shimla as examined in rebuttal and he stated that after leaving the job in said Company and started his own business at Shimla in the year 1977. He vacated his residential accommodation provided by his employer in Ceicel Hotel and shifted to the Rockdene estate, Tara Devi. He knew Smt. Lajwanti, the owner of the said estate and Nanak Singh since 1969. He further stated that Nank Singh had been residing with Smt. Lajwanti the wife of Sardar Ajit Singh. He vacated his residential accommodation provided by his employer in Ceicel Hotel and shifted to the Rockdene estate, Tara Devi. He knew Smt. Lajwanti, the owner of the said estate and Nanak Singh since 1969. He further stated that Nank Singh had been residing with Smt. Lajwanti the wife of Sardar Ajit Singh. Except one Drawing room and a Pooja room, which were retained by Nanak Singh, the rest of the accommodation was given to him on rent, wherein he lived for a period of six months. Thereafter he vacated the same on the request of Nanak Singh in the year 1978 when he informed him that he wanted to keep ‘Akhand-Path’ in the said Kothi itself. One day ‘Nishan Saheb’ was put by the defendant Sabha in the said Estate and it was declared as Gurudwara. Thereafter he vacated the remaining accommodation which was with him. He also sated that adjoining to the land of the Kothi, there was land which was cultivated by Nanak Singh. He further stated that after the death of Lajwanti, Nanak Singh was in the possession and managing the Society and he did not see anybody except Nanak Singh in the possession of entire estate. He further stated that he knew Rajinder Singh Gujral, who had been visiting Lajwanti during her lifetime, but he did not see him in the possession of any portion of the land. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not possess any proof in writing that he had shifted to the said estate from his earlier residence in Cecil hotel. He denied that the said property was being managed by Rajinder Singh Gujral after the death of Smt. Lajwanti. He did not know that Rajinder Singh Gujral had kept Nanak Singh as a Caretaker of the said property as Shri Gujral had been transferred out of India. According to him, Nanak Singh was occupying one bed room, bath room, drawing room and one Pooja room in the Kothi. He did not know whether Akhand Path in the said estate was performed by the defendant Sabha. He also did not know about any Will, having been executed in favour of Shri Gujral by Smt. Lajwanti. He further stated that Nanak Singh also remained as an employee of M/s Byfords Private Limited for many years. He did not know whether Akhand Path in the said estate was performed by the defendant Sabha. He also did not know about any Will, having been executed in favour of Shri Gujral by Smt. Lajwanti. He further stated that Nanak Singh also remained as an employee of M/s Byfords Private Limited for many years. He denied that since Nanak Singh was his employee and that was the reason for deposing in his favour. 36. PW6 Raghu Dutt was also examined in rebuttal. According to him Nanak Singh was seen in the possession of the Kothi since 1972 onwards. He further stated that when the Akhand Path was performed by Nanak Singh, one Manager of the Byfords Company was also residing in the said Kothi. He was a tenant in one portion thereof and paying Rs.20/- as rent let out to him by the plaintiff. He identified the signatures of his father Ram Pal on the counter-foil of receipt Exts.’PW6/A to D. 37. In the cross-examination, he stated that his father was working as a Storekeeper in the Byfords Company. After his studies, he started working as a TV/Radio mechanic in the year 1980 at Shimla and also worked on a part-time, for one year in Baba Hotel. He stated that no agreement was executed with respect to his tenancy at the time of taking on rent the Quarter No.8 in the suit property in the year 1982. He denied that the Langer and Akhand Path were organised by the defendant Sabha. He denied that the counter foils shown to him were fabricated. He further stated that the plaintiff had entered the Kothi with the help of the police when the employees of defendant Sabha had occupied the Kothi. He admitted that Ex.PW6/D was signed by him on the reverse of it. The plaintiff tendered the jamabandies Exts.PZ1 and PZ2 and also certified copy of mutation Ex.PZ3 in evidence in rebuttal. DW1 Rajinder Singh Gujral denied the tenancy of Nanak Singh and according to him, Nanak Singh was appointed only as a Caretaker of the land in dispute as he was on a foreign assignment. The plaintiff tendered the jamabandies Exts.PZ1 and PZ2 and also certified copy of mutation Ex.PZ3 in evidence in rebuttal. DW1 Rajinder Singh Gujral denied the tenancy of Nanak Singh and according to him, Nanak Singh was appointed only as a Caretaker of the land in dispute as he was on a foreign assignment. He further stated that Nanak Singh managed the property till the year 1980 when he received the information from some friends that Nanak Singh had broken open the lock of the property and started living in the said Bungalow of Rockdene estate he wrote to his Advocate from Iran where he was posted and also to the police requesting them to ensure the eviction of Nanak Singh. He was informed by the local police that there was some case pending with respect to the property and they would not be able to take any action in the matter. Thereafter he learnt that Nanak Singh had filed a suit against him in the year 1980, be he never appeared in that suit. However, he engaged his counsel in that suit. He further stated that he was informed by his counsel that Nanak Singh has produced some letters written by him to Shri Nanak Singh in connection with the management of the suit property. Later he learnt from his counsel that Nanak Singh had withdrawn the said suit and the original documents filed with the suit were also taken back by him, whereas his counsel obtained the certified copies of those letters while a suit was still pending in the court and these certified copies were produced by him in the suit No.44/83 marked as ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ and ‘D’. He further stated that there were some tenants in the house Rockdene Estate who used to pay rent to Nanak Singh. The main building was being looked after by Nanak Singh for himself, which was kept locked for his use. He further stated that the vacant land forming the portion of estate within the area of about 12 to 15 bighas was partly cultivable one, over which the vegetables were being grown. He further stated that after the death of Smt. Lajwanti, he was the owner of the entire estate inclusive of the vacant land. He further stated that the vacant land forming the portion of estate within the area of about 12 to 15 bighas was partly cultivable one, over which the vegetables were being grown. He further stated that after the death of Smt. Lajwanti, he was the owner of the entire estate inclusive of the vacant land. He further deposed that sometime in the year 1986, he had executed a deed of trust in regard to the entire property and the said trust was named as ‘Ajit Lajwanti Trust’. There were six trustees including himself, who were managing the property ever since. He categorically denied that Nanak Singh was even inducted as a tenant at any portion of the suit property. 38. He also asserted the Will of Smt.Lajwanti in his favour and in cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know whether any will in respect of the said property was executed by Ajit Singh who had died around in the year 1965-66. But Smt. Lajwanti being the widow of Sardar Ajit Singh had inherited the property. 39. DW8 Jagat Singh deposed that he had been visiting the suit property of and on and he also knew Smt. Lajwanti and Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral. He further stated that Sardar Ajit Singh remained President of Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Card Road, Shimla. He and his wife Lajwanti used to live in the said Kothi. He had visited the suit properly lastly about two months ago. Kirtan and Langer were going on there, having been arranged by defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha. He further stated that Shri Praveeen, brother of Nanak Singh was the employee of the said Gurudwara Singh Sabha. In the trust created by Rajinder Singh Gujral, he was made one of the trustees and Gurudwara of Singh Sabha is situated on the suit property and is being managed by defendant Sabha, but the Kothi was in possession of Nanak Singh under some court order. He further stated that as far as he knew, Nanak Singh was employed as servant by him in the year 1970. 40. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether any Will was executed by him in favour of some trust. He also did not know whether Gurudwara Singh Sabha had approached the revenue authorities for getting mutation attested in its favour, on the basis of said will, and that mutation was cancelled. 40. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know whether any Will was executed by him in favour of some trust. He also did not know whether Gurudwara Singh Sabha had approached the revenue authorities for getting mutation attested in its favour, on the basis of said will, and that mutation was cancelled. He also did not know whether mutation of said property was attested in favour of Nanak Singh defendant after it was contested by Gurudwara Singh Sabha. He identified his signatures on the written statement dated 11.4.1987 in civil suit No.12/81 which bore his signatures. He admitted its contents to be correct. According to him, he did not know whether the contents of the paras 1 and 2 of un-amended written statement were correct or not. He stated that he did not have any knowledge about the Will ever executed by Sardar Ajit Singh. He admitted that Lajwanti was in possession of the suit property after the death of her husband. He did not remember that Sub Judge, in the earlier suit filed by Nanak Singh had visited the spot. 41. DW12 is Mohan Singh, Senior Clerk of the Copying Agency. According to him, one Darshan Singh Sethi had applied for the supply of some certified copies in case, Nanak Singh v. Rajinder Singh pending in the court No.3 of Sub Judge, Shimla, which were delivered to him. He further stated that the said C.D. form stood destroyed as per rules. 42. DW13 Baldev Singh, President of the defendant trust who took over the office from the earlier President Darshan Singh, stated that Sardar Rajinder Singh Gujral had gone abroad in connection with his employment and had employed Nanak Singh as a Caretaker of the suit property. He stated about the withdrawal of the previous suit b y Nanak Singh and proved the certified copy of the letters Exts.DW13/B to 13/E obtained from the file of the earlier civil suit. He also identified the contents and signatures on the letters Ex.DW13/F and Ex.DW13/G in the hands of Praveen Singh. He also stated that Nanak Singh was never inducted as tenant in the suit property by anyone. According to him, Gurudwara Lal Ajit Singh Sabha is self created Sabha by Nanak Singh, in which all the members of the Sabha are his relatives and from his own family. He also stated that Nanak Singh was never inducted as tenant in the suit property by anyone. According to him, Gurudwara Lal Ajit Singh Sabha is self created Sabha by Nanak Singh, in which all the members of the Sabha are his relatives and from his own family. This Sabha was a bogus Sabha and a non functional Society. He also stated that during the pendancy of suit, Nanak Singh wrongly and unauthorizedly got changed the entries in his name. He tendered in evidence documents Exts. 43. DW13/J to 13/X. In his cross-examination, he stated that defendant Sabha has not authorised Sardar Jagat Singh to sign the written statement. He stated that he has been the President of the said Sabha. The case of the plaintiff is denied by him. He further stated that Rajinder Singh Gujral is a legatee under the Will of Lajwanti. He admitted the written statement Ex.PY filed by Darshan Singh Sethi and also the order Ex.PZ passed on 5.4.1980. He has categorically stated that the management of the said Gurudwara was done by the different Sabha. He denied that at the time of the spot inspection by the Sub Judge in the earlier suit some crop was found grown on a portion of the suit land 44. The plaintiff was allowed to lead the evidence in rebuttal pursuant to order passed on 8.5.97. The plaintiff examined Darshan Singh Sethi (PW5) and Raghu Dutt (PW6) whose statements have been referred above. 45. On having considered the oral as well as documentary evidence critically qua the first plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not find that the plaintiff Nanak Singh was earlier proved to be in adverse possession of the land in dispute or in the capacity of a tenant as alleged. The reason being that in the earlier suit, of which the copy of the plaint is Ex.D3, Nanak Singh had claimed himself to be in adverse possession of the suit land and had sought the relief of injunction against defendant Gurudwara Singh Sabha with respect to the adjoining agricultural measuring 2 bigha 17 biswas entered into the possession of Smt.Lajwanti as the occupancy tenant, under the State of Himachal Pradesh. He had nowhere pleaded that he was ever inducted as a tenant by Smt. Lajwanti, however, in para-10 of the plaint, he had also taken the plea that he had moved an application to the Tehsildar to record him as the occupancy or non-occupancy tenant as the case may be. He did not know his actual position at that time. His stand had been dilatory and self destroying. Further Tehsildar was not competent to effect the change of tenancy in the revenue record. Further the earlier suit was contested by Gurudwara Singh Sabha and they had filed written statement Ex.PX3 denying the claim of the then plaintiff Nanak Singh. S. Rajinder Singh Gujral was added as a party at a later stage. Thereafter, finding himself on a loose wicket in that suit, Nanak Singh had moved an application for the withdrawal of the suit with a permission to file a fresh on the same cause of action, which was allowed, with liberty as stated above vide order dated 19.3.1981, but even thereafter, Nanak Singh did not file the suit as per the liberty granted to him by the Court. His plea that the suit filed by the Society through him as President was that suit is absolutely incorrect. The liberty was given to him in his individual capacity to file the suit afresh and not to the Society. Even in the suit {C.S. 12/81) filed by the Society, the plea of tenancy was not taken, more specifically when the suit was filed at his instance as he had verified the plaint knowing fully well the consequences. Even in the earlier suit, which was withdrawn, Rajinder Singh Gujral was defendant No.2, but no relief was sought against him nor there was any allegation made against him, rather Nanak Singh had relied upon the letters of Rajinder Singh Gujral, certified copies of which were placed and proved on record, wherein he had been shown as a caretaker approved by Rajinder Singh Gujral. In the suit filed by the defendant trust, it was clearly mentioned in para-6 of the plaint that Nanak Singh was its Caretaker. Even in the first written statement filed by Nanak Singh, he did not claim himself to be a tenant. It was much after the written statement was amended and in para-5, the tenancy was alleged. 46. In the suit filed by the defendant trust, it was clearly mentioned in para-6 of the plaint that Nanak Singh was its Caretaker. Even in the first written statement filed by Nanak Singh, he did not claim himself to be a tenant. It was much after the written statement was amended and in para-5, the tenancy was alleged. 46. According to the plaintiff Society, the entry of Nanak Singh was made in the revenue record pursuant to the order Ex.PXX dated 5.3.1983. A perusal of this order shows that an application was moved by Nanak Singh earlier in case No.36/79-80 decided on 5.3.83 by the pre-decision of Assistant Collector IInd Grade. It appears that Nanak Singh was ordered to be inducted in possession qua the suit land by the Sub-Judge on his visit to the spot on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. which had went up to the High Court. Nanak Singh moved another application to induct him in possession as a tenant. This application was a sort of review of the earlier order which was decided by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade in his favour, on 5.3.83 ex-parte, in absence of Rajinder Singh Gujral or his authorised agent and State of H.P., knowing fully well that Rajinder Singh Gujral had gone abroad on a foreign assignment. It is surprising that the proclamation was made through the daily Hindi newspaper “Pratap” dated 12.9.81 which was also not in wide circulation even in India. Thus it was an eye wash and was of no consequence and proceeding against Rajinder Singh Gujral [ex parte] was wrong and illegal. The revenue Officer relied upon the spot inspection conducted by the Sub Judge in the civil suit as stated above and acceded to the request of Nanak Singh to induct him as a tenant, without specifying whether a non-occupancy or occupancy tenant. Further the date of decision in the application is given 5.3.83 whereas in the last para, it has been mentioned as 5.7.1986 when the above suits were sub-judice in the civil court. 47.Further as per the Land Records Manual (Para 8.15), the status of landowner or tenant cannot be altered except by agreement of all the parties interested, or in consequence of a decree or order which is binding upon them, or in accordance with facts proved or admitted to be correct. 47.Further as per the Land Records Manual (Para 8.15), the status of landowner or tenant cannot be altered except by agreement of all the parties interested, or in consequence of a decree or order which is binding upon them, or in accordance with facts proved or admitted to be correct. Further, no entry under Section 45 or otherwise can be made in the revenue record except through a mutation as provided under Rule 10A of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1975. The case of Nanak Singh did not fall under any of the above provisions which could authorise the revenue Officer to affect the change. Thus the order Ex.PXX above, for correction is also nonest on the rights of the defendants 48. Further the dispute of a land-lord and tenant can only be decided as per rule 29 of the rules framed under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1975, by the Land Reforms Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Neither the facts in hand were admitted nor the dispute was decided by the Land Reforms Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, therefore, order Ex.PXX, on which the implicit reliance has been placed by plaintiff is not legally and factually correct. Therefore the order aforesaid is redundant and nonest on the rights of the defendants and the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred to decide the matter. 49. It is a settled proposition of Law that an exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be readily inferred and every presumption should be made in favour of existence of jurisdiction rather than its exclusion as held in Dalip Singh vs. State [1992 (1) Shim. L.C. 320]. When the relationship of tenant and Landlord is not admitted, civil Court has a jurisdiction [1994 (1) Shim.L.C. 342]. In the instant case either this relationship is pleaded nor proved and not even admitted. The plaintiff Society had filed the suit through Nanak Singh to serve the interest of Nanak Singh only not for the benefit of society. It is a camouflage suit to sub-serve the interest of Nanak Singh alone. 50. In the instant case either this relationship is pleaded nor proved and not even admitted. The plaintiff Society had filed the suit through Nanak Singh to serve the interest of Nanak Singh only not for the benefit of society. It is a camouflage suit to sub-serve the interest of Nanak Singh alone. 50. Further in the suit filed by the plaintiff Society, the defendants had filed their written statement and the matter was listed for admission and denial of the documents and vide order dated 2.9.1981, it was thought desirable to record the statements of the parties before framing of issues, thus they were directed to be present on 16.9.1981. On that date, Nanak Singh, in his capacity as the present President of the plaintiff Society made a statement before the Court that the property in dispute was owned by Smt. Lajwanti, who had died issueless and there was no legal heir competent to inherit her property and therefore, stood escheated to the State and in the suit filed by defendant Trust, the statements of Nanak Singh (Defendant No.1) and his brother Praveen Singh (Defendant No. 2) were also recorded on 3.4.1984 before framing of the issues as precisely stated supra, wherein Nanak Singh simply stated that the Lajwanti engaged him to cultivate the land, he had no relations with Lajwanti. She was to be paid grain by him and in fact no specific amount of grain was settled and no receipt was taken by him from Lajwanti regarding the payment of this grain and no writing was executed to this effect. He also stated that in the year 1968, it is when during her illness Smt. Lajwanti asked him to live with her in the Kothi premises. Thus his previous statement that he was living in the Kothi from 1966-67 is wrong as he stated that he was tilling her land prior to that, whereas Praveen Singh in his statement stated that he did not retain any property in dispute except being a member of the Committee of the defendant-Society or in his capacity as a brother of Nanak Singh with whose consent he was living in the said property. 51. He did not spell out about the tenancy of Nanak Singh and even Nanak Singh did not say about the creation of the tenancy in the presence of the witnesses examined by him. 51. He did not spell out about the tenancy of Nanak Singh and even Nanak Singh did not say about the creation of the tenancy in the presence of the witnesses examined by him. However, he was in possession of part of the property for which the suit of the defendants for possession was decreed by the trial court. 52. The certified copies of the letters obtained by the defendants from the record of the suit filed by Nanak Singh previously sent by Rajinder Singh Gujral to Nanak Singh also shows that Nanak Singh was a caretaker of the land in dispute appointed by Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral. The narration in the letter Ex.DW13/B to F makes this fact abundantly clear and these were also the documents filed and relied by the plaintiff Nanak Singh in his previous suit. The aforesaid documents/letters were sent to the Handwriting Expert, but he was unable to express his opinion and sought more specimen and admitted handwritings of the similar model for comparison, which were taken though not sent. 53. Since the basic order of the induction of Nanak Singh regarding the correction of the entries is wrong, the final order conferring the proprietary rights on him is also wrong and illegal. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that it is not open to the defendant to challenge the conferment of the proprietary rights granted to him at this stage in the suit, absolutely is incorrect for the reasons stated above. In the circumstances narrated above, the civil Court has undoubtedly jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter. The order of inducting Nanak Singh as a tenant by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade is held to be without jurisdiction. 54. Further after the death of Smt. Lajwanti, her estate was inherited by Rajinder Singh Gujral on the basis of the Will. To that effect, during the mutation Ex.DW13/L the enquiry about the genuineness of Will was held the witnesses of the Will were examined and it was thereafter attested and accepted in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral. It is also important to note that during the proceedings in mutation No.412 (Ex.DW13/M), when the property was to be mutated on the Trust deed executed by Rajinder Singh in favour of Singh Sabha, Nanak Singh despite notice did not appear to file his objections. It is also important to note that during the proceedings in mutation No.412 (Ex.DW13/M), when the property was to be mutated on the Trust deed executed by Rajinder Singh in favour of Singh Sabha, Nanak Singh despite notice did not appear to file his objections. These detailed facts in Ex.DW13/M dated 24.3.1983, were not considered at all by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade while recording the tenancy of Nanak Singh. To conclude, the first point, I hold that Nanak Singh as projected by the Society in their suit as tenant of the disputed land stands not proved and the findings of the learned trial court are correct, therefore, upheld. 55. It is next argued that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Nanak Singh as a party has been moved and in his absence issue of tenancy could not have been decided. To substantiate this point, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Nanak Singh can even be impleaded as a party even at the appellant stage and in order to substantiate this, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has cited Hardutt Sharma vs. JaiKishan Sharma Shyam Lal and Sons [AIR 1983 J&K 29] 56. I have gone through the case law cited above. In fact an appeal is continuation of the suit, a person may be added as a party to it, even at the stage of the appeal, provided his addition is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The questions involved in the suit mean and include only those questions that are involved in the suit between the parties to it, who are already on the record and cannot include those questions that may subsequently arise between them and the person who seeks to be impleaded as a party to the suit. 57. It is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it is not for a court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. But it is equally well settled that the matter has to be adjudicated on merits by the court. But it is equally well settled that the matter has to be adjudicated on merits by the court. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to keep in mind a relevant consideration that as far as possible, multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. If the court feels that in case a person is not impleaded as a party, all questions raised in the suit cannot be finally, completely and effectually decided and there is likelihood of another proceeding which can be avoided by impleading such person as a party to the suit, notwithstanding an objection by the plaintiff, he may be joined as a party since his presence before the court is found necessary. 58. In the instant case, Nanak Singh has filed his earlier suit which was withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh on the same cause of action which he did not file. He also filed the suit in his capacity as a President of the Society. The plaint was verified by him. He was also impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the Trust. His claim has been proved to be in variance in pleadings and proof. His case and claim was not bonafide. As already stated supra, the suit filed by him as President of the Society is a camouflage suit to serve his own purpose which lack probity and is malafide. In view of the above facts, I do not find that Nanak Singh is a necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiff Society, therefore, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is dismissed. 59. In so far as the second contention regarding the genuineness of Will of Smt. Lajwanti in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral is concerned, brief resume of the statements of the witnesses examined in this behalf may be useful for appreciating the contention raised. 60. Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral DW1 is the propounder of the Will. According to him, Smt. Lajwanti had executed a Will in respect of the property sometimes in the year 1968. The Will was executed at ‘Rockdeen Estate’ itself in presence of (DW3) Dr. B.R. Nanda, (DW2) Shri HS. Kaushal, Advocate and (DW4) Kangaroo Ram, Petition Writer. The will was got registered by Lajwanti in the year 1970. She had handed over the Will to him after its registration. The Will was executed at ‘Rockdeen Estate’ itself in presence of (DW3) Dr. B.R. Nanda, (DW2) Shri HS. Kaushal, Advocate and (DW4) Kangaroo Ram, Petition Writer. The will was got registered by Lajwanti in the year 1970. She had handed over the Will to him after its registration. He stated that the original Will got misplaced somewhere, because it got misplaced while he had been away from India for about 14 years. Of course the original document was with his household assets from place to place during the last 14 years of his posting abroad but according to him, he had piles of some documents in his place at Delhi and also his place of posting and could not easily find out the original Will. He further stated that the original Will was got prepared by Smt. Lajwanti and was signed by the witnesses. He produced on record its Carbon copy marked ‘X’ (Ex.D2) which was signed by the witnesses and it also contained the receipt issued by the Registration Office. He further stated that he is conversant with the signatures of Smt. Lajwanti and writing. He recognised her signatures on the said documents encircled at points ‘A’ and ‘B’. He further stated that her husband Sardar Ajit Singh was remotely related to him. After the death of Ajit Singh, he was looking after her at Shimla. He has further stated that at the time of execution of the Will he was present. At that time, she was in the perfect state of health. During her lifetime, Shri Nanak Singh was living in one of the out-house of ‘Rockdane estate’, but she was herself managing the estate. Shri Nanak Singh used to visit her of and on. He also stated that after the death of Smt.Lajwanti, he was managing the estate till the year 1973 he was living in Himachal Pradesh. While leaving the State, he appointed Nanak Singh as a Caretaker of the property who managed the property till the year 1980. 61. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the scribe of the Will was Kangaroo Ram (DW4). According to him Kangaroo Ram had typed out the Will. He further stated that Smt. Lajwanti had given the instructions to Shri Kaushal, Advocate at her residence at Rockdene Estate for the execution of the Will in the year 1968. 61. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the scribe of the Will was Kangaroo Ram (DW4). According to him Kangaroo Ram had typed out the Will. He further stated that Smt. Lajwanti had given the instructions to Shri Kaushal, Advocate at her residence at Rockdene Estate for the execution of the Will in the year 1968. Later she got the Will registered in the year 1970 through her advocate. As far as he recollected, it was Smt. Lajwanti herself who has called the witnesses. At that time she was having a telephone connection. There were five persons present at the time of execution of the Will. He categorically stated that he visited the ‘Rockdene estate’ after the execution of the Will and she got it mentioned in the Will that after her death, he would manage the property. 62. DW2 H.S. Kaushal, Advocate has categorically stated that he knew Smt. Lajwanti very well, because he had conducted her estate duty case. He was requested sometime in February, 1968 by her to come to her place as she wanted to execute a Will. She was contacted telephonically. 63. Thereafter he arranged for the vehicle and went to her place along with Dr. B.R. Nanda and Kangaroo Ram, Petition Writer where they reached at about 3 P.M. Dr. B.R. Nanda examined his presence and found her in the fit state of mind and health. 64. On inquiry, she expressed her desire to execute a Will and gave out the facts to him they way she wanted. He took down the instructions in the form of short notes and directed the Kangaroo Ram to draft a Will. After disclosing him the instructions given to him by Smt. Lajwanti, a Will was drafted in Hindi language with which he was not familiar. Shri Kangaroo Ram put in two carbon papers on account thereof two carbon copies of original Will which were typed out by him. As desired by him, Shri Kangaroo Ram read out the Will which was typed out by him. He found that all the contents which were jotted down as instructed by Smt. Lajwanti. The Will was typed out in the same room where Lajwanti, B.R. Nanda and Kangroo Ram were present together. The Will was read out loudly by Kangaroo Ram so that Smt. Lajwanti could hear what was written therein. He found that all the contents which were jotted down as instructed by Smt. Lajwanti. The Will was typed out in the same room where Lajwanti, B.R. Nanda and Kangroo Ram were present together. The Will was read out loudly by Kangaroo Ram so that Smt. Lajwanti could hear what was written therein. After the narration of the fact in the Will, she admitted it to be correct. It was thereafter she signed the said document in his presence and in presence of Dr. B.R. Nanda and Kangroo Ram after that Smt. Lajwanti affixed her signatures on it, he himself, B.R. Nanda and Kangaroo Ram also affixed their signatures on it as attesting witnesses in her presence and in the presence of Rajinder Singh Gujral. The signatures were made on the original Will but also on the both the carbon copies of the Will by each of them. The carbon copy of the Will shown to him was admitted to be one such prepared at that time and identified his signatures dated 2.2.1968 on the Will, which was having two pages. Each page was signed by him and also by Smt.Lajwanti in Gurumukhi. She identified her signatures on the said Will and further stated that at the bottom of the second page of the carbon copy of the Will there was an endorsement of Dr. B.R. Nanda. The correction in green ink was having been made by him. After looking at the Will Ex.D2, he confirmed the genuineness of the same. He further stated that an original as well as carbon copy of the Will was handed over to Lajwanti and at that time she was in perfect state of mind and health. 65. In cross-examination, he has stated that he did not remember by which method and apparatus Lajwanti was examined by Dr. B.R. Nanda. He admitted that he could not write and read Hindi. He could not produce the notes which he made at the instance of Smt.Lajwanti, on the basis of Kangaroo Ram drafted the Will as he did not retain the same. He denied that Kangaroo Ram had typed out what was instructed to him by him. However, he clarified that the Will was read out by Kangaroo Ram to him and also to Smt. Lajwanti. He denied that Kangaroo Ram had typed out what was instructed to him by him. However, he clarified that the Will was read out by Kangaroo Ram to him and also to Smt. Lajwanti. He admitted that Ex.D2 is a carbon copy, but he could identify his signatures and signatures of Lajwanti and other marginal witnesses. He admitted that Kangaroo Ram had put his signatures as scribe on the original Will which was not on the carbon copy Ex.D2. He has also identified the signatures of Dr. B.R. Nanda. He did not remember the contents of the Will nor he could read the same from the Will. DW3 Dr. B.R. Nanda has substantiated his version. He and his doctor wife both knew Lajwanti very well since 1946. They also knew Sardar Ajit Singh. They were also their medical advisor. According to him, Lajwanti was a diabetic and they were in visiting terms with Sardar Ajit Singh and Smt. Lajwanti. He stated that Lajwanti had executed a Will in the year 1968 at her residence at Rockdene estate. He had gone to her residence on that occasion along with Shri H.S. Kaushal, Advocate and Kangaroo Ram. He examined Lajwanti and also put some questions to her. She was found in perfect mental state and was in good health. The Will was typed out by Kangaroo Rm. It was read over to her and he remember her telling him that she had followed what was written in it. 66. Personally he could not read Hindi, but could follow the language. He had appended a certificate about the state of health of Lajwanti at the foot of the Will. He also stated that after the Will was read over to her, she had expressed herself by saying that it contained what she wanted by repeating the contents. Thereafter she appended her signatures on it. Shri H.S. Kaushal, Advocate and Kangaroo Ram were also present. He admitted his signatures on Ex.D1 and issuance of certificate endorsed at the bottom thereof. In cross-examination, he has stated that it was the same family members which associated Lajwanti who had called him. He was conveyed the message of Lajwanti that she wanted him to visit her to certify that she was in the fit mental condition to execute a Will. In cross-examination, he has stated that it was the same family members which associated Lajwanti who had called him. He was conveyed the message of Lajwanti that she wanted him to visit her to certify that she was in the fit mental condition to execute a Will. However, he failed to go on the day, but stated that he visited her in the evening in a Jeep. She was found resting on her bed. He examined her with the Stethoscope and gave a certificate on the basis of clinical science. He further stated that Lajwanti was suffering from diabetes mellitus. He stated that Kangaroo Ram was typing the Will on the dictation of Lajwanti. As far as he remembers, he stated that besides himself and Kangaroo Ram, Smt. Lajwanti and Shri H.S. Kaushal (DW2), Income Tax Practitioner and Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral (DW1) were present there and he did not remember whether anyone out of them has signed the Will in his presence. As far as he recollected the contents of the Will as stated b y Lajwanti were that that income from the property in Estate would go to Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Shimla and that of moveable property to Shri Gujral. After the Will was scribe, Lajwanti orally stated the contents of the Will enable her to conclude what was stated in the Will was correct. He stated that he also could not read and write Hindi. He could not say after such a long time now that Smt. Lajwanti signed the Will in his presence. 67. DW4 Kangaroo Ram, the scribe of the Will has stated that he was a licenced petition writer working in district Courts, Shimla since 1966. According to him, the original register wherein he had made an entry got destroyed in the fie which took place in the district Courts building during the intervening night of 19th December, 1972, however, he remembered having typed out the Will one Smt. Lajwanti, but he could not give the date. However, on being shown the document Ex.D2, he stated that it was not possible for him in absence of any certificate having been given by him whether it is a carbon copy of any document typed out b y him. However, on being shown the document Ex.D2, he stated that it was not possible for him in absence of any certificate having been given by him whether it is a carbon copy of any document typed out b y him. Thereafter, his statement was deferred and the learned counsel sought permission to obtain instructions by obtaining a certified copy of the registered Will to find out whether it contained any certificate or any indication by which the witness could say that he has typed out the Will, but thereafter he was not examined. 68. On the critical examination of the above evidence, I find that the statement of Kangaroo Ram cannot be read into evidence in absence of his cross-examination, but however, the law in this behalf is absolutely clear as far as Will is concerned. 69. A Will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of the Will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It may be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the Will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party, as held in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti and others [ AIR 1990 Suprem Court 396] by the Apex Court. 70. Legally, the propounder of a Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will, and if there are any surrounding suspicious circumstances, the propounder must repel it by adducing cogent and satisfactory evidence. The application of these two general and broad principles, however, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. The application of these two general and broad principles, however, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, it cannot be put on straight jacket formula. But, the initial burden is always on the propounder to prove due execution, attestation and a sound disposing state of mind of the testator. Any plea of undue influence and/ or falsity, forgery has to be sustained by the person who takes up the pleas; whereas, as far as the suspicious circumstances are concerned these are to be approached by the court in a normal situation as the suspicious circumstances can neither be defined nor exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each case thus no hard and fast rules could be laid. 71. However, for the purpose of valid attestation of the will, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act makes it imperative that there should be two or more attesting witness who should either sign or affix their thumb mark in the presence any by the direction of the testator or receive from the testator, a formal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or of signatures of such other person and each witness shall sign the will in the presence of the testator etc. The mode of proof of the Will is governed by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereas the authenticity of a Will depends on the circumstances surrounding its execution and quality of evidence that is led in respect of genuineness. Whether a will is genuine or not has to be decided on the facts of each case. There is no mathematical equation to determine its genuineness. Even if the propounder of the Will is able to prove the will and if it is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, in that event it is liable to be ignored. The entire law has been espoused in H.Venkatachala Iyengaar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443] by the Apex Court and is being followed constantly and holds good even today. In the instant case, the Propounder of the Will has examined H.S. Kaushal, Advocate and Dr.B.R. Nanda, the attesting witnesses of the Will in question. The entire law has been espoused in H.Venkatachala Iyengaar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others [AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443] by the Apex Court and is being followed constantly and holds good even today. In the instant case, the Propounder of the Will has examined H.S. Kaushal, Advocate and Dr.B.R. Nanda, the attesting witnesses of the Will in question. Both of them are dis-interested witnesses and have categorically stated that they were called at their residence by Lajwanti in the month of February, 1968 for executing a Will. The substance of the Will was narrated to the Advocate by Smt. Lajwanti in short. After preparing the notes, he dictated it to Shri Kangaroo Ram, the petitioner writer, who typed out by preparing the carbon copies. Thereafter it was read over and explained by him to the testator to which she admitted to be correct and thereafter she appended her signatures on each page of the copies of the Will in presence of the witness aforesaid and those witnesses attested the Will in her presence in the same sitting. 72. During that time, Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral was also present. In the Will, it is ostensibly made clear that the testator has no issue and she was being looked after by Rajinder Singh Gujral, who was at that time Divisional Forest Officer, posted in Kinnaur Division in Himachal Pradesh. She has given the details of the property in the said Will, which was bequeathed by her by executing the said testament. A certificate is also appended to it under the signatures of the witnesses that they had signed the said Will in the presence of the testator. Vide said testament, she also made it clear that in the out-house, her servant Chander Rao was staying with his family and Rajinder Singh would not claim any rent from him and further the executor of the Will Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral would pay Rs.5,000/- to each of the Gurudwara, stating therein if he would sell Plot No.22 and from rest of the amount, he would organise the ‘Akhand Path’. There is also a certificate of the registration on the said Will appended by the Sub Registrar on 2.1.1970. 73. There is also a certificate of the registration on the said Will appended by the Sub Registrar on 2.1.1970. 73. It is also well settled that where the Will is registered or unregistered, it would carry the same value, but however, the genuineness of the Will has to be established by its propounder in accordance with the settled proposition of law. The discrepancies occurring here and there in the statement of the said witnesses is owing to the time and date when they were examined in the court after its execution. The non-examination of the Kangaroo Ram would not affect the proof of Will, as the marginal witnesses were examined by the defendants in order to prove the Will the law requires that one of such witness may be examined to prove document in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act. 74. Further the carbon copy of the original Will was proved and placed on record without any objection from the plaintiff. It is also well settled that the carbon copy of the same document prepared at the same time during the same process is an original document. The carbon copy of the Will is in the same language and is an accurate and a full representation of the original. Further when it is produced in the evidence, the objection of its tampering the genuineness and fictitious nature of the document was not raised. In Smt. Kamala Rajamanikkam vs. Smt. Sushila Thakur Dass and others [AIR 1983 Allahabad 90], the facts were that there were two Wills in identical language, typed by the same process of typing in which the second copy was obtained by a carbon impression and both were duly executed by the testator and also attested by the attesting witnesses in accordance with law. It was held that none of them can be said to be a copy of the other within the meaning of Section 62 of the Evidence Act and both of them must be treated as original wills. Thus, genuineness of Ex.D2 stands established on record by cogent evidence and judicial conscientious stands satisfied. Further Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral had not kept anything unto himself. He has created the Trust for the religious purposes and transferred the property to the Trust by a deed of Trust, whereas Nanak Singh has personal interest and own exe to grind. Thus, genuineness of Ex.D2 stands established on record by cogent evidence and judicial conscientious stands satisfied. Further Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral had not kept anything unto himself. He has created the Trust for the religious purposes and transferred the property to the Trust by a deed of Trust, whereas Nanak Singh has personal interest and own exe to grind. He wanted to have slice from the estate of Smt. Lajwanti to grind his own axe. Said Nanak Singh is nowhere related to the deceased Lajwanti. His tenancy stands not proved. Shri Rajinder Singh Gujral had put forth his claim on the basis of the Will, which as stated above stands proved. Nanak Singh aforesaid is a stranger to the estate of Smt. Lajwanti. Thus, he cannot legally challenge the Will in question in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral in any way. In so far as the claim of the damage for the sum of Rs.6,000/- is concerned, I find no discrepancy in the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court whereby it was declined to the plaintiff in suit No.6-S/1 of 96/83. Although Nanak Singh was in authorised possession of the suit property, but his this possession was restrained by this court in FAO No.31/1981 and thereafter in OMP No.22 of 1981 filed in civil Sit No.12/81 on the basis of concession made by the counsel representing the plaintiff in the said suit, therefore, in these circumstances, I do not find that the plaintiff in suit N o.6-S/1 of 1983 are entitled for damages as claimed, this was rightly decided against the plaintiff/objectors. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, the Will Ex.D2 executed by Smt. Lajwanti stands proved being legal and valid. The land in dispute is held to be rightly mutated in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral vide Mutation Ex.DW13/L attested on 22.8.1970 the claim of the appellants has no force in view of the above detailed discussion. 75. The land in dispute is held to be rightly mutated in favour of Rajinder Singh Gujral vide Mutation Ex.DW13/L attested on 22.8.1970 the claim of the appellants has no force in view of the above detailed discussion. 75. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the suit No.38-S/1 of 95/81 filed by the appellants was dismissed, whereas the connected suit No.6-S/1 of 96/83 filed by the defendants was partly decreed for possession of the suit property i.e. Kothi shown in red ink and mentioned in the heading of the plaint with consequential relief of injunction qua the suit land detailed in para-4 of the plaint. No other points urged. Accordingly, both the appeals and cross-objections are dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.