JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 11.1.2012, rendered by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Rudrapur in Civil Suit No. 82/2010, Rajiv Jain & Another v. Bhupendra Singh, has been challenged. The suit was decreed and the defendant Bhupendra Singh was injuncted not to interfere in the peaceful possession/occupation nay the construction work on the property in question. In addition to, the unregistered Will dated 8.11.1991, which was being made the basis by the defendant claiming his ownership over the land, was also declared as void and inoperative. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant Bhupendra Singh is before this Court. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, brief facts, which are the extracts of the pleadings of the parties in the suit, are being reproduced as below. 3. The land bears the no. 160/1, area 1 bigha 13 bishwa situated in Village Bilhairi, town Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The boundaries of the land have been indicated at the end of the plaint. It was ad measuring 96 ft. width east west x 120 ft. length north south. It was the part of a big land and purchased way back on 7.12.1967 by Smt. Kamla Jain, W/o Satish Chandra Jain for the consideration of Rs. 2,000/-, as is adverted from the original sale deed available on the lower court record. Smt. Kamla Jain was the mother of the plaintiffs/respondents and thus Satish Chandra Jain was their real father. After a considerable lapse of almost 22 years, a petrol pump was installed on the land, in question, inter alia for doing certain other business of the petroleum products under the name and style of M/s Hira Lal Jain and Company (Khatima, Nainital) on dated 22.9.1989 under the deed of partnership between Sudhir Chandra Jain, S/o Heeralal Jain, who was none other but the real uncle of the defendant and since the land, in question, where the petrol pump had to be installed was in the ownership of Smt. Kamla Jain, so she was the second party and it was covenanted that net profit or loss of this establishment will be distributed as follows. 50 paise in a rupee to Sudhir Chand Jain, 25 paise in a rupee to Rajiv Jain and 25 paise in a rupee to Sanjiv Jain. 50 paise in a rupee to Sudhir Chand Jain, 25 paise in a rupee to Rajiv Jain and 25 paise in a rupee to Sanjiv Jain. Bhupendra Singh, the defendant appellant, was the Manager of that petrol pump to look the day-to-day affairs of this establishment. 4. There is no dispute that Smt. Kamla Jain died on 17.11.1991, and Satish Chandra Jain, the husband of Smt. Kamla Jain, died on 20.5.2002. The differences erupted in the family, particularly between Sudhir Chandra Jain (the real uncle of the plaintiffs) on the one hand and brother duo Rajiv Jain and Sanjiv Jain on the other. Petrol pump and the business of this petroleum products establishment also came to an end sometime in the later half of the first decade of 2010 due to sundry irregularities and the petroleum company rooted out its machine and infrastructure from the spot. 5. In the above background, Bhupendra Singh, the Manager of the petrol pump, claimed his ownership over the land in question on the basis of unregistered Will dated 8.11.1991 allegedly executed by Smt. Kamla Jain in his favour and got his name mutated in the concerned revenue records by way of launching appropriate proceedings under the Land Revenue Act. Although the plaintiffs interfered in those proceedings, but later on they did not appear and got an appropriate advice to file the injunction suit no. 82 of 2010 before the Civil Judge seeking declaration of the alleged Will as null and void as also the injunction against Bhupendra Singh, as stated above. This suit was decreed, whereagainst this appeal has been filed. 6. Since this is the first appeal, hence it is not confined only to the substantive question of law nor any such question was formulated ever by the Court. So, this Court would like to deal all the issues framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties by the Court below as well as appreciating the finding recorded thereon. Issues are as under: (i) Whether Satish Chandra Jain, father of the plaintiffs, became owner in possession of the land no. 160/1, the details whereof have been mentioned at the end of the plaint, on the basis of the Will dated 25.7.1991 executed in his favour by his wife Smt. Kamla Jain? Issues are as under: (i) Whether Satish Chandra Jain, father of the plaintiffs, became owner in possession of the land no. 160/1, the details whereof have been mentioned at the end of the plaint, on the basis of the Will dated 25.7.1991 executed in his favour by his wife Smt. Kamla Jain? (ii) Whether Smt. Kamla Jain remained hospitalized from 2.11.1991 to 17.11.1991 in the hospital, where she breathed her last on 17.11.1991? (iii) Whether the Will dated 8.11.1991 is a forged document? If yes, its effect? (iv) Whether the alleged Will dated 8.11.1991 is the legal testament and the Will dated 25.7.1991 in favour of Satish Chandra Jain is a forged testament, as has been pleaded by the defendant? (v) Whether the jurisdiction to hear the controversy, in question, lies in the civil court, and not in the revenue court? If yes, its effect? (vi) Whether the suit was improperly valued? If yes, its effect? (vii) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not sufficient? If yes, its effect? (viii) Whether the suit was barred under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code? If yes, its effect? (ix) To what relief the plaintiffs were entitled to? Issue No. 5 7. The Trial Court has adjudicated the issue no. 5 first to ascertain the jurisdiction of hearing. A lot of arguments have been submitted by the learned Counsels of either party with a galaxy of judgments of different High Courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard. This Court does not want to burden the instant judgment by citing the plethora of judgments so relied on because in the judgments of either different High Courts or of Hon’ble Apex Court, the facts remained different. However, in order to sum up the ratio laid down in all the judgments, suffice it to say that where relief is sought regarding the cancellation of a document like sale deed or a Will, the jurisdiction is always vested in the civil court, not in the revenue court. The revenue court cannot cancel a testamentary document or a sale deed. 8. Learned Counsel of the appellant has vehemently argued that the property, in question, was the agricultural land. So, the jurisdiction vested in the revenue courts, and not in the civil court. The revenue court cannot cancel a testamentary document or a sale deed. 8. Learned Counsel of the appellant has vehemently argued that the property, in question, was the agricultural land. So, the jurisdiction vested in the revenue courts, and not in the civil court. I do not agree with the arguments so submitted by the learned Counsel for the reason that simply bearing some number in Khasra and Khatauni maintained by the revenue officials, it is difficult to accept that land is agricultural in nature. For the last almost more than two decades, the petrol pump was being run on the land, in question, and all the surroundings of this land are also not the agricultural in nature. No revenue was being paid to the Government nor any agricultural produce ever harvested from the land by anyone and yet if the civil court is deprived from entertaining the suit of such land and that too for seeking the injunction and cancellation of an alleged forged Will, such a notion would be quite unjustified. So, in this regard, I do agree with the finding of the Trial Judge on this issue that the jurisdiction to hear the controversy, in question, is vested in the civil court and not in the revenue court. Issue No. 2, 3 and 4 9. All these issues are interconnected, hence are being adjudicated together. 10. Having considered the evidence available on the record and looking to this alleged Will dated 8.11.1991, I am of the considered view that this Will is quite forged and fabricated by the appellant defendant for the following reasons. (A) It is proved on the record that the executor of this so called Will remained hospitalized since 2.11.1991 to 17.11.1991 in the Sheel Polyclinic, 11 Rajendra Nagar, Awas Vikas, Bareilly. The death certificate, issued by the hospital on 17.11.1991 at 10.30 AM, itself is sufficient to accept its genuineness. This certificate was issued by Dr. S.Z. Khan (who was M.D. qualified). She died due to cardio respiratory failure on 17.11.1991 at 9.30 AM in that Sheel Polyclinic, Hospital. Her address 206 Civil Lines, Bareilly has been mentioned in that certificate. So, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to procure this certificate in back date as mentioning 17.11.1991 at 10.30 AM on this. The same Dr. She died due to cardio respiratory failure on 17.11.1991 at 9.30 AM in that Sheel Polyclinic, Hospital. Her address 206 Civil Lines, Bareilly has been mentioned in that certificate. So, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to procure this certificate in back date as mentioning 17.11.1991 at 10.30 AM on this. The same Dr. S.Z. Khan by way of issuing second letter dated 9.7.2010 has accepted his signatures on this certificate as well as on the letter confirming his signatures are exactly the same. That apart, she was cremated in Bareilly and the certificate of the trust running for that service has issued certifying her death and cremation on 17.11.1991 in Bareilly itself. That certificate also bears the date 20.11.1991, just after three days of the cremation. Certificate of the Municipality, Bareilly also certifies her death on 17.11.1991 in Sheel Hospital, Bareilly. (B) It has been averred that the mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Kamla Jain was suffering with cancer and was unable to go outside as she was bed ridden. The doctor was called to attend her inside the house. This averment does not mean that even in the case of cardiac trouble, her sons and husband kept her confined in the house itself and did not shift her to the hospital. So, it was impossible for Smt. Kamla Jain to execute an unregistered Will leaving the Sheel Hospital, where she was admitted and coming to Khatima and execute this Will before a Notary on dated 8.11.1991. (C) There was no reason for a loving mother and wife depriving her sons and husband from the property owned by her and to transfer the same by Will in favour of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, who was just an employee running a petrol pump on the land under the title of Smt. Kamla Jain. No reason has been stated in the forged Will as to why she kept her loving and caring husband and sons deprived from the property. (D) Even the concerned Notary, who is still a practicing Advocate in Khatima, has not affirmed his signature on the said alleged Will in response to a letter written by the Advocate of the plaintiff Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal, who is also a practicing Advocate at Bareilly. (D) Even the concerned Notary, who is still a practicing Advocate in Khatima, has not affirmed his signature on the said alleged Will in response to a letter written by the Advocate of the plaintiff Mr. Anil Kumar Agarwal, who is also a practicing Advocate at Bareilly. (E) On other scores also, the Notary has expressed his doubt on the genuineness of his stamp and signature of the executor taking note of the manner of its execution. (F) No proper stamp and serial number of the Notary has been affixed and mentioned which is the necessity as provided under the Notary Rules, 1956 framed under the Notary Act, 1952. (G) Had there been little genuineness in the alleged Will in favour of Bhupendra Singh, then there was no reason for him to keep this Will suppressed almost for 18 years and all of a sudden launch the mutation proceedings before the revenue authorities on the basis of this Will. (H) In these circumstances, it is quite unjustified to expect the plaintiffs to go to the revenue court and resist these mutation proceedings as well as declaration proceedings just for the reason that any person sitting in any corner (Tom, Dick and Harry) has produced this forged Will regarding the property which was owned by their mother. They are the natural successors of the property, in question, after their father. (I) The Will executed by Smt. Kamla Jain in favour of her loving husband on 25.7.1991 though was also unregistered, but the same was natural because she was struggling with her life and her survival. So, anticipating her forthcoming end few months back, such is the natural tendency of any person to transfer his/her rights over that property to the nearest one and so Smt. Kamla Jain did in favour of her loving husband Satish Chandra Jain. (J) This forged Will dated 8.11.1991 reflects its fabrication for yet another reason. The name of Satish Chandra Jain has also been mentioned as alias Santosh Chandra Jain with a specific statement that her husband is known by two names. Certain papers advert the name Satish Chandra Jain, while some other papers advert the name Santosh Chandra Jain. This specific disclosure was itself doubtful because a loyal wife will not make such elaborate disclosures. Certain papers advert the name Satish Chandra Jain, while some other papers advert the name Santosh Chandra Jain. This specific disclosure was itself doubtful because a loyal wife will not make such elaborate disclosures. Such clauses in this fabricated Will was because in the Khatauni of 2005 to 2011 AD, the name of Satish Chandra Jain was mistakenly written as Santosh Chandra Jain and this fact was in the notice of the defendant and that was the reason while fabricating this Will he cautiously made this elaborate disclosures of the two names of the husband of testator. (K) The conduct of the defendant was doubtful for yet another reason. When this mentioning of the wrong name in the concerned Khatauni came into the notice of the plaintiffs, they moved the correction application before the concerned authorities. Since the defendant apprehended that alleged Will in his favour may not be doubted, so he resisted this correction application tooth and nail. His objections were rejected even up to the level of revisional court and name of Satish Chandra Jain was thus correctly recorded in the papers. (L) When Satish Chandra Jain instituted an Original Suit No. 66/98 against the State Government seeking some injunction regarding appurtenant land of this petrol pump, the boundaries of the land, in question, were measured. The petrol pump was found running, and Bhupendra Singh, defendant, was present at the time of measurement representing himself as the Manager of that petrol pump on 2.5.1998. He never disclosed that under the alleged Will he was the owner of the land in question. (M) Here the argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the land, in question, was not bearing the petrol pump on it. It did not bear the no. 160/1, but 160/3 as has been shown in the map prepared by the revenue officials at the spot at the time of measurement. This argument is not acceptable for the reason that even in the pleadings of the defendant in paragraph 17 of the written statement, he has disclosed the real boundaries of the land in question. 160/1, but 160/3 as has been shown in the map prepared by the revenue officials at the spot at the time of measurement. This argument is not acceptable for the reason that even in the pleadings of the defendant in paragraph 17 of the written statement, he has disclosed the real boundaries of the land in question. The boundaries which have been accepted by him in paragraph 17 of his pleadings show that in the east there is Bareilly-Tanakpur Road, in the north there is a thoroughfare, in the south there is a Ashram based school and the same has been displayed in the map prepared by the revenue officials whereon the defendant is also relying. The mentioning of numbers 160/1, 160/2, 160/3 and 160/4 in the map so prepared is itself doubtful on apparent look because these numbers have been written by the different pen than rest of the words in the map prepared by the Patwari concerned. So, the argument of the learned Counsel that the Will, in question, was in connection with the adjoining land of the petrol pump is not acceptable to this Court. (N) Learned Trial Court relying on the precedent in Joseph Antony Lajaras (deceased) through legal representative Vs. A.J. Francis, 2006 (101) R.D. Page-161, has rightly held that if the real successors were being deprived in the Will conferring the title on a person having no family relations, then absence of disclosure in this regard makes the Will doubtful. (O) The argument of the learned Counsel of the appellant that the signature of Smt. Kamla Jain is just the same which has been on the Will executed by her in favour of her husband. In this regard, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that since the appellant defendant was the Manager of the petrol pump, which was being run under the ownership of this family and on the land of Smt. Kamla Jain, so it was quite possible for him during the course of sundry correspondence to procure the signature of Smt. Kamla Jain on blank paper in advance and such paper has been used by him for fabricating this Will. This view has also been expressed by the learned Trial Judge and I also do agree with the said view. (P) It was argued that the Will in favour of defendant appellant has been proved by the two attesting witnesses. This view has also been expressed by the learned Trial Judge and I also do agree with the said view. (P) It was argued that the Will in favour of defendant appellant has been proved by the two attesting witnesses. So, it should be relied. I do not agree with this contention for the reason that it is pertinent to mention that the land, in question, is situated in Khatima town. The defendant also resides in Khatima town and both these two witnesses are also the residents of this small Khatima town. So, it was not impossible for him to manage these two false witnesses in his favour as against the genuine plaintiffs who were the residents of Bareilly city. So, it was quite natural on the part of these attesting witnesses to have their leaning in order to win the favour of the mighty defendant. In view of what have been stated hereinabove, the Trial Court has rightly decided these issues. Issue No. 1 11. As has already been opined, I hold that the Will executed on 25.7.1991 by Smt. Kamla Jain in favour of her husband is the natural one and reflect the natural conduct of the ailing lady foreseeing her end in the near future to transfer the title of the land under her ownership to her loving and caring husband first than even in preference to her sons and so Satish Chandra Jain became the owner in possession of the property, in question, after the death of his wife. This issue has rightly been decided by the Court below. 12. Nothing has been argued before this Court regarding the issue no. 6, 7 and 8. So, I hold that the same have rightly been decided by the Trial Court. 13. In the given facts and evidence, as is available on the record, I find that there is no force in this appeal. It is bereft of any merit and is dismissed with all costs throughout. Interim order dated 25.1.2012 of maintaining status quo/stay is vacated. Lower court record be sent back.