JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No. 14914.C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 14915.C and RSA No. 5114 of 2011 1. This is second appeal by defendants no. 2 and 3. 2. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs against the appellants, proforma respondent no. 3 and predecessors of respondents no. 4 to 10. It is undisputed that plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 4 are/were sons of Madho Ram whereas defendant no. 5 was daughter of Madho Ram. Madho Ram died on 29.7.2002. Plaintiffs’ case is that both the parties being the sole natural legal heirs of Madho Ram are owners in possession of the suit land, left by Madho Ram in equal shares i.e. 1/7th share each. Plaintiffs sought declaration to this effect along with permanent injunction. 3. Legal representatives of defendant no. 5 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs by filing written statement whereas defendant no. 4 was proceeded against ex parte. 4. Only defendants no. 1 to 3 contested the suit. They set up registered Will dated 19.7.2002 allegedly executed by Madho Ram in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 only. 5. Learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2009 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs but also at the same time ordered that land transferred by Madho Ram by way of gift deed dated 11.7.2001 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and vide court decree dated 22.10.1994 in favour of defendant no. 4 shall also be included in the joint land of the parties along with the suit land and both the parties shall have 1/7th share each in the said total land. 6. Defendants no. 2 and 3 filed first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court whereas plaintiffs preferred cross-objections therein. Learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 5.10.2011 dismissed the appeal preferred by respondents no. 2 and 3 and allowed cross-objections preferred by the plaintiffs and thereby excluded the land covered by the aforesaid gift deed and civil court decree and confined the judgment and decree to the suit land i.e. the land left by Madho Ram in his own name at the time of his death. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 2 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal along with RSA No. 5124 of 2011 of the same title. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 2 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal along with RSA No. 5124 of 2011 of the same title. Two second appeals have been preferred because of one first appeal and one cross-objections therein. Both these second appeals shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 7. Along with appeals, appellants have moved applications for additional evidence (CM No. 14915.C of 2011 in the instant second appeal) to produce the original Will in question and to examine attesting witnesses thereof as witnesses. 8. I have heard counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. 9. Relationship of parties with Madho Ram is undisputed. In view thereof, both the parties are natural legal heirs of Madho Ram in equal shares i.e. 1/7th share each. Defendants no. 1 to 3 have set up Will dated 19.7.2002 allegedly executed by Madho Ram in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3 only. However, they have miserably failed to prove the same in accordance with law. Original Will has not been produced in evidence nor permission for leading secondary evidence of the Will was sought. Consequently, copy of the alleged Will could not be admitted in evidence. Moreover, in view of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and section 68 of the Evidence Act, it was essential to examine atleast one attesting witness of the Will to prove its execution. However, no attesting witness of the Will has been examined and therefore, execution of the Will has not been proved in accordance with law. 10. Counsel for the appellants prayed that additional evidence be allowed to produce the original Will and to examine its attesting witnesses. However, there is no ground for permitting the proposed additional evidence at second appellate stage. The whole case revolved around the alleged Will. In spite thereof, neither original Will was produced in evidence nor any attesting witness thereof was examined to prove its execution in accordance with law. It is alleged in the application for additional evidence that defendants had handed over the original Will to their counsel before filing of written statement along with information that attesting witnesses of the Will were ready to appear and depose about the Will, but in spite thereof, the counsel did not think it necessary to examine any attesting witness of the Will. This is hardly any explanation for nonproduction of the original Will and non-examination of attesting witnesses thereof in the trial court. No such prayer was even made at the stage of first appeal. Consequently, no ground for permitting proposed additional evidence at second appellate stage is made out. Accordingly, the applications for additional evidence are dismissed. 11. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to negative the alleged Will set up by the contesting defendants is justified by the evidence on record because the alleged Will has not been proved in accordance with law and therefore, in view of natural inheritance, suit has been rightly decreed holding both the parties to be having 1/7th share each in the suit land. Direction of the trial court to include the land of gift deed dated 11.7.2001 in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and court decree dated 22.10.1994 in favour of defendant no. 4 in the joint land was patently erroneous and illegal and has been rightly set aside by the lower appellate court because even the contesting defendants did not claim any share in the said land which had already been transferred by Madho Ram in favour of plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 4 respectively. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in these second appeals. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication therein. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed in limine.