JUDGMENT Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - There is delay of 223 days delay in filing this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submits that due to old age and illiteracy, appellant could not enquire about the case and was told at much later stage by the Clerk of counsel in lower court that appeal had been dismissed, this has resulted in delay of 223 days in filing present appeal. 3. On going through the submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and perusal of plea taken in the application, no ground for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is made out. 4. I have heard learned counsel for appellant on merits of appeal. 5. Raghbir Singh plaintiff-appellant filed suit seeking possession of 1/8th share of suit land which was earlier owned by his father Kanshi. The dispute related to registered Will dated 10.4.1964 executed by Kanshi in favour of defendants No.1 to 6. The Will was thereafter duly acted upon and changes in revenue record were made accordingly. Admittedly, Kanshi, on his death on 28.3.1976, was survived by his seven sons i.e. plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6, his wife and two daughters. The mutation of inheritance was entered and sanctioned in the revenue record on 21.2.1977. The plaintiff and one daughter were excluded from his succession by Kanshi but he made due arrangement of maintenance of his estranged daughter Pritam Kaur and his wife. The present suit was filed by plaintiff-appellant in December, 2003 i.e. after period of more than 26 years of sanctioning of mutation. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the reason given in the Will for ignoring appellant from inheritance was that land had already been purchased in name of appellant in auction. 7. The lower court while scrutinizing above argument has observed that the version of appellant that the said land was purchased by him of his own is untruthful as he was a young boy at that time. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that only fact which weighed before the court while upholding the Will was that it was more than 30 years old document. He has argued that no such presumption can be attached to the Will even if it was a registered document. 8. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that only fact which weighed before the court while upholding the Will was that it was more than 30 years old document. He has argued that no such presumption can be attached to the Will even if it was a registered document. The Will is required to be proved as per provisions of Section 68 Evidence Act and appellant has failed to examine any marginal witness of Will to prove its due execution. Both the courts below have committed error of law while upholding the Will as valid and genuine document on the ground that it is more than 30 years old document. 9. Section 90 Evidence Act attaches presumption to a document which is 30 years old. It reads as under :- “Section 90 - Presumption as to documents thirty years old: Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.-Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.” 10. The Will in this case has been produced from proper custody and both the courts below have committed no error of law or fact while drawing presumption that this Will was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it was purported to be executed and attested. 11. The courts below have not proceeded merely on presumption of Section 90 Evidence Act. Statement of Iqbal Singh Advocate was also looked into who had identified signatures of one of attesting witness of Will, namely, Rattan Chand, who at the relevant time was working as Clerk with Mr. Jagan Nath Khosla Advocate in the court complex. Mr. 11. The courts below have not proceeded merely on presumption of Section 90 Evidence Act. Statement of Iqbal Singh Advocate was also looked into who had identified signatures of one of attesting witness of Will, namely, Rattan Chand, who at the relevant time was working as Clerk with Mr. Jagan Nath Khosla Advocate in the court complex. Mr. Iqbal Singh, Advocate has identified signatures of Rattan Chand as he was acquainted with same. Respondents have also examined DW-2 Ashok Kumar Deed Writer, who had identified handwriting of his father, who scribed Will dated 2.4.1964 which was got registered on 10.4.1964. Kanshi remained alive for the period of 12 years after execution and registration of the said Will. There is nothing on file that Kanshi ever challenged execution of Will at any point of time during his life time. 12. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that appellant had ignored one of his daughter namely Bimla Devi and his wife and this is a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will purported by respondents. 13. The above argument of learned counsel for respondent is meritless as Bimla Devi, despite being a party to the suit has never raised issue of her exclusion in the Will. The appellant, admittedly, was ignored by Kanshi by making averment in the Will that he has already been given other properties. After such a long period of more than 26 years after the death of his father Kanshi, this plea is now not available to appellant that registered Will dated 2.4.1964 was not a valid Will of his father. 14. The argument of learned counsel for appellant that mere registration of Will is not a circumstance proving its genuineness and validity, cannot be discarded but at the same time registration of Will during life time is a very strong indicator reflecting the intention of testator. This reflects anxiety of testator and the precautions taken by him by getting the Will registered so as to add authenticity to his act. The Will was got scribed from regular Deed Writer and son of Deed Writer has identified writing of his father. Signature of one of attesting witness of the Will have been identified and this complies with the requirement of Section 69 Evidence Act. 15. The Will was got scribed from regular Deed Writer and son of Deed Writer has identified writing of his father. Signature of one of attesting witness of the Will have been identified and this complies with the requirement of Section 69 Evidence Act. 15. On perusal of paper book and concurrent findings of both the courts below upholding the Will executed by Kanshi as valid and genuine document, I find no legal or factual infirmity calling for interference. 16. The appeal has no merits. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the appeal are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————