JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2000 rendered by the District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 58/99. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff ' for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land against the appellant-defendant (herein after referred to as 'defendant No.2 ' for convenience sake) and against Sh Sawaru, predecessor-in-interest of defendant 1-a and 1-b, Tulsi and Bimla as per the original memo of parties of Civil Appeal No.58 of 1999 and against respondents No.3 to 5, namely, Ram Bhagat, Beli Ram and Tulsi. According to the averments contained in the plaint, one Sefu had three sons, namely, Phagnu, Bhogi and Sawaru. Plaintiff is the daughter of Phagnu whereas defendants No.1-a, 1-b and 2 are the legal heirs of Sawaru. Bhogi died on 25.4.1983. He was owner in possession of the land as per detailed given in the plaint. Plaintiff claimed that she being the only daughter of Phagnu is entitled to succeed to the share of Bhogi in the suit land alongwith defendants No.1-a, 1- b and 2 in equal shares. According to her, Bhogi died intestate. Defendant No.2 Tek Ram in connivance with deceased defendant No.1, i.e. Swaru forged a fictitious document claimed to be a “will” dated 24.4.1983 whereby the testator is alleged to have bequeathed his entire estate in favour of defendant No.2. She was not bound by the “will”. She had raised objection before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade at the time of attestation of mutation. However, he did not record her objections. She has also challenged the sale deed dated 3.10.1991 effected by defendant No.2 Tek Ram in favour of Saje Ram, Beli Ram and Ram Bhagat. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No.1-a and 1-b, namely, Tulsi and Bimla have denied that Bhogi died intestate. Bhogi executed a “will” in favour of defendant No.2. The same was perfectly valid and legal. 4. Defendant No.2 has also filed written statement. According to him, Bhogi required his services. He rendered services to him. Bhogi executed a “will” in his favour out of love and affection on 24.4.1983. Bhogi executed a “will” in favour of defendant No.2. The same was perfectly valid and legal. 4. Defendant No.2 has also filed written statement. According to him, Bhogi required his services. He rendered services to him. Bhogi executed a “will” in his favour out of love and affection on 24.4.1983. It was executed in presence of respective marginal witnesses whereby he bequeathed his entire moveable and immovable property in his favour. The testator was in his sound state of mind. The dispute arose between him and father of plaintiff after the death of Bhogi. It was resolved vide compromise dated 6.6.1983 in the presence of witnesses. 5. Defendants No.3 to 5 have also filed written statement. They have supported the sale deed dated 3.10.1991. 6. Name of Tulsi widow of Sawaru was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondent vide order dated 26.7.2010. Smt. Bimla daughter of Sawaru was ordered to be proceeded ex parte vide order dated 21.3.2014. The legal representatives of Ram Bhagat were permitted to be brought on record vide order dated 8.7.2013, namely, 3-a Sheela Devi, 3-b Anita Devi, 3-c Rameshwari and 3-d Anil Sharma. Respondents 3-a to 3-d were ordered to be proceeded ex parte. The legal representatives of deceased respondent No.4 Beli Ram were also permitted to be brought on record vide order dated 8.7.2013 whereby defendant No. 4-a Bhag Singh and 4-b Raghubir Singh were brought on record. 7. Trial court framed the issues. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 7.1.1999. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1999 before the District Judge, Kullu. He partly allowed the same on 30.6.2000. Hence, the present appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. “Whether the learned District Judge has misapplied law pronounced by the Apex Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court for considering the due execution and attestation of the Will? Are not the findings of the learned District Judge vitiated by holding such circumstances to be suspicious ignoring such principles of law? 2. Whether the learned District Judge has wrongly rejected the application for additional evidence filed by the Defendant- Appellant? 3. Whether the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court are vitiated on account of misreading the relevant evidence and wrong application of correction principles of law? 4. 2. Whether the learned District Judge has wrongly rejected the application for additional evidence filed by the Defendant- Appellant? 3. Whether the findings rendered by the Lower Appellate Court are vitiated on account of misreading the relevant evidence and wrong application of correction principles of law? 4. Whether the learned District Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent without even deciding the question as to who is in possession of the suit property, whether the Judgment and Decree of Injunction is bad in law as there was no jurisdiction vested in the learned District Judge to grant an injunction against the co-sharer? 8. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial questions of law, has vehemently argued that learned first appellate court has misconstrued and misread the evidence pertaining to “will” Ex.DW- 2/A dated 24.4.1983. According to him, the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land and thus, the decree of injunction in favour of plaintiff could not be granted. Mr. Bhupender Gupta has supported the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1999 passed by the trial court. 9. Mr. Rajender Kumar has supported the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. 10. Mr. Rahul Verma has supported the judgment and decree of the trial court. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 12. One Sefu had three sons, namely, Phagnu, Bhogi and Sawaru. Plaintiff is the daughter of Phagnu. Defendants No.1-a and 1-b and 2, i.e. Tek Ram are the legal representatives of Sawaru. It is not disputed that Bhogi died on 25.4.1983. According to the plaintiff, she being the only daughter of Phagnu was entitled to succeed to the share of Bhogi in the suit land alongwith defendants No.1-a, 1-b and 2 in equal shares. According to her, “will” dated 24.4.1983 Ex.DW-2/A was not genuine. She had raised objections at the time of attestation of mutation. The objections raised by her were not accepted by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. 13. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1, Phagnu was her father. Bhogi was her uncle. Bhogi died in the year 1983. She has proved death certificate Ex.PW-1/A. Her father died in the year 1989. Death certificate is Ex.PW-1/B. Bhogi died issueless. Bhogi never got married. Sawaru has also died. 13. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1, Phagnu was her father. Bhogi was her uncle. Bhogi died in the year 1983. She has proved death certificate Ex.PW-1/A. Her father died in the year 1989. Death certificate is Ex.PW-1/B. Bhogi died issueless. Bhogi never got married. Sawaru has also died. She inherited the property after the death of her father and her uncle. Bhogi's estate was inherited by her father and her uncle Sawaru. Bhogi has never executed any “will' during his life time. He was looked after by her father. The last rites were performed by her father. Defendants Saje Ram, Beli Ram and Ram Bhagat knew about the dispute and despite that they bought the property vide mark =A'. In her cross-examination, she has deposed that her marriage was solemnized about 15 years ago. She used to live with her in-laws and also used to reside in the maternal house. She has further deposed that her father and Bhogi used to live together. Their ration card was one. Bhogi was suffering from Asthma. Her mother was divorced by her father when she was in the womb. She was born in the house of her maternal grand-father. Her father has got treated Bhogi at Patli Kuhal and Duare. She did not know the names of doctors. She knew Mahant, Shyam Lal and Lal Chand. They were man of repute. These three persons had no enmity with her father. She had appeared before the Tehsildar at the time of attestation of mutation. No counsel had accompanied her. Tehsildar had made certain inquiries. She has denied the suggestion that Bhogi was occupying the house. Volunteered that she was also in possession. She has also admitted that key of the house was with Tek Ram. 14. According to DW-1 Tek Ram, Bhogi was his uncle. Phagnu was also his uncle. Name of first wife of Phagnu was Gulabi. Plaintiff is the daughter of Gulabi. Phagnu and Gulabi divorced. Plaintiff was born in Seobagh. Plaintiff has never looked after Bhogi. He used to look after Bhogi. He has performed his last rites. He has executed the “will” mark X' in his favour. Shyam Lal, Tulsi Ram and Shyamu were the marginal witnesses. Bhogi was in his senses. A dispute has taken place between plaintiff's father and him. A compromise has taken place between him and father of plaintiff. It was scribed by Tulsi. He has performed his last rites. He has executed the “will” mark X' in his favour. Shyam Lal, Tulsi Ram and Shyamu were the marginal witnesses. Bhogi was in his senses. A dispute has taken place between plaintiff's father and him. A compromise has taken place between him and father of plaintiff. It was scribed by Tulsi. The mutation was attested on the basis of “will”. Plaintiff was present at the time of attestation of mutation. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that Bhogi had desired to execute “will” 3-4 days before executing the “will”. All the members of the family were present at that time. The marginal witnesses were summoned scribe was also summoned. The “will” was executed in the courtyard. Bhogi was in a position to walk. It took one hour to scribe the “will”. He has denied the suggestion that Bhogi and Phagnu used to live together. He has also denied the suggestion that Bhogi became unconscious 3-4 days before executing the “will”. He has denied the suggestion that Bhogi was not in a position to speak. He has sold 14 biswas of land due to adverse circumstances. 15. DW-2 Shyam Lal is the marginal witness. He remained Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Duara between 1978 to 1982. Bhogi has executed “will” Ex.DW-2/A. It was scribed by Lal Chand Kapoor. The contents of the “will” were read over to Bhogi by Lal Chand Kapoor. He admitted the same to be correct. He put his thumb impression in the presence of marginal witnesses. He signed in his presence and Shyamu put his thumb impression. Bhogi was in senses at the time of execution of “will” Ex.DW-2/A. Lal Chand Kapoor has died. Bhogi was looked after by Tek Ram. The “will” was scribed in the courtyard. It took about 15-20 minutes to scribe the “will”. Firstly, Bhogi put his thumb impression on “will” Ex. DW-2/A and thereafter he put his signatures on the same. Thereafter, Tulsi signed the same and Shyamu put his thumb impression. 16. DW-3 Nand Lal has deposed that a compromise took place between Tek Ram and Phagnu vide Ex.DW-3/A. It was scribed by Tulsi Ram Mahant at the instance of Tek Ram and Phagnu. He has admitted that he was Vaid. Tek Ram has never come to get the medicine, but Sawaru used to take the medicine. 17. 16. DW-3 Nand Lal has deposed that a compromise took place between Tek Ram and Phagnu vide Ex.DW-3/A. It was scribed by Tulsi Ram Mahant at the instance of Tek Ram and Phagnu. He has admitted that he was Vaid. Tek Ram has never come to get the medicine, but Sawaru used to take the medicine. 17. DW-4 Ram Nath has deposed that his father was Stamp Vendor. He was conversant with his handwriting. Ex.DW-2/A was scribed by his father. His father died in the year 1995. 18. DW-5 Gaje Ram has deposed that Tek Ram was the owner of the suit land. The area was about 14 biswas. They have inquired about the status of the land before purchasing it. The ownership was in the name of Tek Ram as per revenue papers. The sale consideration was Rs.35,000/-. The sale deed was registered on 3.10.1991. 19. DW-6 Maghu Ram has deposed that the land measuring 14 biswas was sold for Rs. 35,000/- on 3.10.1991. The copy of sale deed is Ex. DW-6/A. 20. DW-7 Anil Mahant has deposed that Charan Dass was his father. He was conversant with his handwriting. Ex.DW-6/A was scribed by his father. 21. Plaintiff has also appeared in rebuttal. According to her, she had gone to the office of Tehsildar at the time of attestation of mutation. She has not taken any action against the Tehsildar. 22. What emerges from the statements of the witnesses discussed hereinabove is that the “will” Ex.DW-2/A was executed on 24.4.1983. Bhogi died on 25.4.1983. The “will” was scribed by father of DW-4 Ram Nath. According to DW-4 Ram Nath, the “will” Ex.DW-2/A was scribed by his father. DW-2 Shyam Lal was the marginal witness. According to him, the contents of “will” were read over to Bhogi. Bhogi put his thumb impression on the “will”. Thereafter, he alongwith marginal witnesses signed and put thumb impression on Ex.DW-2/A. It is evident from the statement of PW-1 Bali that she was born in the house of her maternal grand-father. She was married 15 years back. She has categorically deposed that she had no inimical relations with Tulsi Mahant, Shyam Lal and Lal Chand. It has come in the statement of DW-1 Tek Ram that he was looking after Bhogi. He has performed his last rites. Sh. Bhogi was in his senses at the time of execution of “will”. 23. She was married 15 years back. She has categorically deposed that she had no inimical relations with Tulsi Mahant, Shyam Lal and Lal Chand. It has come in the statement of DW-1 Tek Ram that he was looking after Bhogi. He has performed his last rites. Sh. Bhogi was in his senses at the time of execution of “will”. 23. Learned first appellate court has misconstrued compromise Ex.DW-3/A dated 6.6.1983. It was not required to be signed by Tek Ram. It is evident from compromise Ex.DW-3/A that father of the plaintiff had admitted that his brother Bhogi has executed a “will” in favour of Tak Ram. The other circumstance considered by the first appellate court against the defendants is that the “will” was executed on 24.4.1983, but the mutation was attested on 28.8.1991. Merely that the mutation was attested after few years would not render the “will” invalid. The mutation is Ex.PW-1/E, name of the plaintiff is mentioned in the proceedings dated 28.8.1991. Merely that defendants did not know at what time Bhogi died would not render the “will” Ex.DW-2/A suspicious. It is not at all necessary to mention in the “will” why the legal heirs have been excluded. The first appellate court has come to a wrong conclusion that it was necessary for the defendants to prove that father of the plaintiff was not looking after deceased Bhogi. What was to be seen is whether the principles for execution of the “will” have been followed or not. In the instant case, the “will” has been proved in accordance with law. It was not necessary for the defendants to prove the minor details, more particularly, when it has come in the statement of DW-3 Nand Lal that Sawaru Ram used to take medicine for Bhogi. All the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 24. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 30.6.2000 passed by the District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No. 58/99 is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 7.1.1999 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Manali in Civil Suit No. 324/98/92 is restored. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.