ORDER 1. Heard on M.C.P. No.1135/2001, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. It is contended that the appellants after obtaining the certified copy of judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court could not manage to bear the expenses for travelling to Jabalpur, for the purposes of filing the present appeal, therefore, there is a delay of two days in filing the appeal. This Court has issued the notices of this I.A., but no response whatsoever has been filed by the respondents. Accordingly, MCP is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Since this Court has already sent for the record of the Courts below which has been received, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard on admission. 4. This is a second appeal by defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2000 passed in C.A. No.18-A/99 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Rewa, dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.55-A/97 by the IInd Civil Judge Class I, Rewa. 5. The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellants and respondents No.2 and 3 for declaration to the effect that the land described in the suit was bequeath to the respondent No.1-plaintiff by original holder of the land by a registered Will deed. The original holdler of the land had died on 5.10.1991. While his last rites were being performed the appellants came to the village, took away certain ornaments and papers of the property of the original holder and got a forged Will dated 24.9.1991 prepared, on the basis of which they got their names recorded in the revenue record. When the respondent No.1-plaintiff came to know about such a fact he objected and filed a suit. It was claimed in the suit that the Will dated 18.6.1991 executed in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff was genuine one and the Will executed in favour of the appellants herein and all the entries made on the basis of such Will in the revenue record was null and void and not binding on the respondent No.1-plaintiff. The appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying such claim made by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. The appellants-defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement denying such claim made by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. They contended in their written statement that the appellant No.1 was in fact daughter of the original holder of the land and out of the love and affection the Will was executed in her favour by the original holder of the land. The appellants got their names recorded on the basis of said valid Will in the revenue record. In fact the Will dated 18.6.1991 said to be executed in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff was a forged document. Even otherwise, since another Will was executed on 24.9.1991 by the original holder of the land in favour of the appellants, the Will dated 18.6.1991 lost its validity. No right was available to the respondent No.1-plaintiff to claim any right, title or interest in the property in suit on the basis of such Will. Thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court after framing of issues recorded the evidence of the parties, got the Will examined by the handwriting expert and decreed the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff holding that the Will dated 18.6.1991 was a genuine Will executed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff. It was further held that the Will dated 24.9.1991 was forged Will. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned civil Court, the appeal was preferred by the appellants before the lower appellate Court which has been dismissed, hence this second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the two Courts have utterly failed to see that the Will dated 24.9.1991 was subsequent Will. According to law any previous Will executed on 18.6.1991 had lost its validity. Further while holding that the Will dated 24.9.1991 was a forged document, certain reports of the handwriting expert were examined. However, the reports of the handwriting expert cannot be said to be authentic evidence in view of the fact that only thumb impression was made by the testator of the Will. It was not right on the part of the Courts below to rest their findings on the report of handwriting expert only. However, the reports of the handwriting expert cannot be said to be authentic evidence in view of the fact that only thumb impression was made by the testator of the Will. It was not right on the part of the Courts below to rest their findings on the report of handwriting expert only. Relying on the decision in the case of Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi [ (2003)1 SCC 21 ], it is contended that the handwriting expert’s opinion are not the conclusive proof of any fact, they need corroboration as the handwriting experts can simply give their opinion. Due caution and care should be exercised while accepting such expert reports and it should be accepted only after a detailed proof and full examination. Further relying in the case of Savithri and others v. Karthyayani Amma and others [ (2007)11 SCC 621 ], it is contended that in a family property, the mental capacity of testator who was unwell at the time of execution of Will causes suspicious circumstances of such facts which were to be taken into consideration and it was to be held that mere examination of the attesting witnesses of the Will would not be sufficient to prove any particular Will. Thus, it is contended that the finding arrived at by the two Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. 8. Such contentions of learned counsel for the appellants are examined in view of the evidence available on record. Admittedly, Ex.P-1 is the Will said to be executed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, through his father as the respondent No.1-plaintiff was minor at the time when the Will was executed. The recital in the Will not only categorically states that half of the land indicated in the said Will was owned by the testator and rest half portion fell in the share of the brother of the testator by name Himachal Prasad. While bequeathing his share the testator has made the arrangement for maintenance of his wife who was alive at that time. The said Will is duly registered in the office of the Registrar after its attestation. To prove such a Will, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has examined the witnesses. While bequeathing his share the testator has made the arrangement for maintenance of his wife who was alive at that time. The said Will is duly registered in the office of the Registrar after its attestation. To prove such a Will, the respondent No.1-plaintiff has examined the witnesses. Those witnesses have categorically deposed that such a Will was executed in favour of respondent No.1-plaintiff, because the respondent No.1-plaintiff was the son of the daughter of the testator who was looking after the testator and his wife. Nothing material has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses in disproving these facts. The attesting witnesses of the said Will have been examined as PW5 (Ramniwas Tiwari). The other attesting witness PW6 (Sahabuddin) was also examined. Again in Court statement nothing material has come to show that the Will dated 18.6.1991 was not executed by said testator. More importantly PW2 (Smt. Ramkali) was examined who was the widow of the testator and she categorically contended that with the consent, it was decided to bequeath the entire property in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff by the testator and Will was executed on 18.6.1991. Yet another important aspect is that Himachal Prasad, brother of the testator who was having half share in the property was also examined as PW3 and he stated in his statement that since he was not married, had no issues and legal heirs, he too has given his part of property to mother of respondent No.1-plaintiff. He further stated that his sister-in-law, i.e., wife of the testator had informed him that appellant No.1 herein, came and took away the articles and some of the papers. The witness from the Registrar Office was also called for the purposes of proving the registration of Will dated 18.6.1991 and the said witness PW4 categorically stated that on 18.6.1991, the Will was executed by the testator in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff. However, this witness also stated about the execution of second Will on 24.9.1991 by the same testator in favour of appellant No.1. 9. The next important witness was Madan Mohan Kakkad, the handwriting expert said to be examined by the respondent No.1-plaintiff as PW7. This witness has given a report on the thumb impression of the testator on disputed Will i.e. Ex.P-2 dated 24.9.1991 said to be executed in favour of appellant No.1. 9. The next important witness was Madan Mohan Kakkad, the handwriting expert said to be examined by the respondent No.1-plaintiff as PW7. This witness has given a report on the thumb impression of the testator on disputed Will i.e. Ex.P-2 dated 24.9.1991 said to be executed in favour of appellant No.1. The handwriting expert gave his report categorically mentioning the fact that there were differences in the thumb impression of the testator. From the admitted document such standard thumb impression were obtained which were not tallying with the thumb impression on the disputed Will Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1. The finding was given on the seven points in report after comparing the marks of impression. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined, but nothing could be pointed out as to what were the infirmities in giving such a report. Even otherwise, if the appellants were of the opinion that handwriting expert opinion was not believable or acceptable they could have asked for opinion of any other handwriting expert which they did not. The compelling circumstances indicated in the statement of witnesses, for execution of the Will in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff were not met out in any way. In the Will Ex.P-2 said to be executed in favour of appellant No.1, there was no reference of previous Will executed in respect of respondent No.1-plaintiff. Even otherwise, in this Will no arrangement was made for maintenance of the wife of testator who was alive at that time. Not a single word was said in this Will with respect to any arrangement for maintenance of the wife of testator. In comparison to this, if the recital of Ex.P-1 Will dated 18.6.1991 is seen, full arrangements were made by the testator for maintenance of his wife, even while bequeathing the entire property to the respondent No.1-plaintiff. Therefore, there was no other option available to the Courts below but to hold that Will dated 24.9.1991 was a forged document. 10. The law relied by the learned counsel for the appellants also supports that these compelling circumstances can be looked into while assessing the correctness of the finding with respect to the genuineness of the Will. From the aforesaid narration of the evidence available on record, if finding is recorded by the two Courts that Will dated 24.9.1991 was a forged Will, it cannot be said that any wrong is committed by the Courts below. From the aforesaid narration of the evidence available on record, if finding is recorded by the two Courts that Will dated 24.9.1991 was a forged Will, it cannot be said that any wrong is committed by the Courts below. No error of law is found in the appreciation of evidence and decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1-plaintiff. 11. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed.