JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred before this Court by the plaintiffs, who stand aggrieved by the rendition of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appeal instituted before him by the defendants/respondents herein against the judgement and decree of the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Bilaspur, whereby the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Bilaspur, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration as well as for permanent injunction qua the suit land, stood accepted. Besides, the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, while accepting the appeal preferred before him by the defendants/respondents had also reversed the decree of possession qua possession accorded in favour of the plaintiff/appellant by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur qua possession of Khasra No.115 measuring 0-1 biswas. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that the plaintiff Ram Dittu on 18.11.1992 had instituted a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 to 4 in the Court below on the allegations that one Shri Lachhman son of Shri Hiru had been owner in possession of land described in Khewat/Khatoni No.69/84, Khasra No.118, 119, 136, 141, 152, 454, 115, 139, measuring 3-5 bighas situated in revenue estate Dhabeta, Pargana Fatehpur, Tehsil Shree Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur. Shri Lachhman on 3.5.1985 in sound disposing state of mind and body had executed his last and final Will Ext.PA of his estate in favour of the plaintiff. Shri Lachhman had died on 10.8.1992. After the death of Shri Lachhman, the plaintiff had been owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant No.3 Ram Murti, in collusion with officials of the revenue department, had got himself recorded in possession of Khasra No.115, measuring 0-1 biswa. In the books of Collector, it had been recorded that Shri Lachhman had gifted Khasra No.115 in favour of defendant No.3. The gift is contended to be illegal and without jurisdiction as the value of Khasra No.115 was Rs.50,000/-. In collusion with defendants No.1, 2 and 4, the defendant No.3 wanted to grab the suit land. The defendant No.3 had started representing that defendants No.1 and 2 were legal heirs of Shri Lachhman. The defendant No.3 was stated to be carrying much influence. The plaintiff was a poor person. In collusion with defendants No.1, 2 and 4, the defendant No.3 wanted to grab the suit land. The defendant No.3 had started representing that defendants No.1 and 2 were legal heirs of Shri Lachhman. The defendant No.3 was stated to be carrying much influence. The plaintiff was a poor person. The Tehsildar had refused to sanction the mutation of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of registered Will Ext.PA. The defendants No.1 to 4 had started interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. The plaintiff had sought declaration of his ownership and possession of the suit land. The defendants No.1 to 4 were sought to be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff of the suit land by issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction. Alternatively, the plaintiff had sought relief of possession. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by defendants No.1 and 2 on the grounds of maintainability, improper valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction, want of jurisdiction, in preliminary objections. In reply to paras on merit, the defendants No.1 and 2 had admitted the ownership and possession of Shri Lachhman son of Shri Hiru of the suit land. It had been averred that the alleged Will set up by the plaintiff had been revoked by Shri Lachhman vide registered revocation deed Ext.DW-4/A on 25.6.1992. As such, after the death of Lachhman, the plaintiff could not be treated legal heir of Shri Lachhman. The plaintiff had not been owner in possession of the suit land. The defendants No.1, 2 were legal heirs of Shri Lachhman. After his death, the defendants No.1 and 2 had been owners in possession of the suit land. As such, the question of interference of defendants No.1 and 2 with the possession of the plaintiff of the suit land could not arise for consideration. The plaintiff was stated to have started interference with the ownership and possession of defendants No.1 and 2 of the suit land. The defendants No.1 and 2 had instituted counter claim for restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief muchless to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. The defendants Nos.3 and 4 had also resisted the suit. The defendants No.1 and 2 had instituted counter claim for restraining the plaintiff from interfering with their ownership and possession of the suit land. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief muchless to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. The defendants Nos.3 and 4 had also resisted the suit. The defendant No.3 had denied having manipulated the transfer of khasra No.115, measuring 0-1 biswas from Sh.Lachhman in his favour by illegal means. The defendant No.3 had denied having connived with the officials of the revenue department in any way. It had been contended that the defendant No.3 was an attesting witness of revocation deed Ext.DW4/A of 25.6.1992. The plaintiff had instituted false and frivolous suit against defendant No.3. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against defendants No.3 and 4. 4. The plaintiff had filed written statement to the counter claim of defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff had also filed replication to the written statement of the defendants Nos.1 to 4 and had reiterated his ownership and possession of the suit land on the strength of registered Will of 3.5.1985 Ext.PA. Sh.Lachhman had not revocated the Will. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable, as alleged? ….OPD. 2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction? ….OPP. 3. Whether deceased Lachhman executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land? …OPP. 4. Whether the Will dated 3.5.1985 executed by Lachhman deceased in favour of the plaintiff stands revoked by testator on 25.6.1992, as alleged and if so, its effect? …OPD. 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit as alleged? …OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? …OPP. 7. Whether defendants Nos.1 and 2 have been coming in possession of the suit land after the death of Lachhman by way of natural succession, as alleged in Counter claim? …OPD. 8. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for the permanent injunction, as prayed for? …OPD. 9. Relief. 6. …OPP. 7. Whether defendants Nos.1 and 2 have been coming in possession of the suit land after the death of Lachhman by way of natural succession, as alleged in Counter claim? …OPD. 8. Whether the defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for the permanent injunction, as prayed for? …OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff whereas the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, had allowed the appeal preferred before him by the defendants/respondents. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, in, its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 24.12.2003, this Court, admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgement and decree of the learned first Appellate Court is based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, particularly revocation deed Ext.DW-4/A? 2. Whether the learned first Appellate Court misread and misconstrued the evidence to conclude that Smt.Jhalli was the sister of deceased Lachhman and such finding is based on surmises and conjectures and inadmissible evidence? Substantial questions of law No. 1 & 2: 8. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/appellants herein one Ram Dittu was the son of the brother of father of deceased testator Lachhman, whose estate on his demise opened for succession. The aforesaid Ram Dittu on the demise of deceased Lachhman stakes title to the suit property on the strength of Will Ext.PA purportedly executed in his favour by deceased Lachhman. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, had imputed legitimacy besides concluded that the Will propounded by Ram Dittu, predecessor-ininterest of the appellants herein comprised in Ext.PA was validly and duly executed qua his estate by deceased testator Lachhman. The conclusion qua validity and due execution of Will Ext.PA in favour of Ram Dittu predecessor in interest of the plaintiff was founded upon the factum of the defendants respondents in their written statement having admitted the factum of its valid and due execution qua his estate by deceased testator Lachhman. The conclusion qua validity and due execution of Will Ext.PA in favour of Ram Dittu predecessor in interest of the plaintiff was founded upon the factum of the defendants respondents in their written statement having admitted the factum of its valid and due execution qua his estate by deceased testator Lachhman. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur, while testing the fervor and tenacity of the aforesaid conclusion formed by the Sub Judge 1st Class qua Ext.PA acquiring probative force constituted in the fact of its valid and due execution having been admitted by the defendants in their written statement had on a discerning and piercing besides an in depth analysis of the pleadings of the parties detected an inherent fallacy in the conclusion aforesaid formed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in the endeavour to test the sinew of the aforesaid reasoning attributed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, in imputing legitimacy besides validity to Ext.PA had adverted to the contents of paragraph 2 of the plaint where the plaintiff had averred that on 3.5.1985 deceased testator Lachhman had executed a Will qua his estate in his favour. Besides he proceeded to allude to the corresponding para of the written statement instituted by the defendants to the aforesaid averments, a perusal whereof unraveled the factum of the defendants having denied the factum aforesaid averred therein by the plaintiffs, besides when the defendants 1 and 2 contended that the deceased testator Lachhman had revoked Ext.PA, the latter contention when construed in entwinement with the defendants in their written statement denying paragraph 2 of the plaint proclaiming the factum of Ext.PA having been validly executed qua his estate by deceased testator Lachhman in favour of the plaintiff, was concluded by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur to be not fostering any conclusion as erroneously formed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur that the defendants while theirs having in their response to the apposite averment in the pleadings of the plaintiff constituted in paragraph No.2 of the plaint admitted the valid and due execution of Ext.PA, hence, the factum of valid and due execution of Ext.PA stood substantiated as well as established. The said reasoning as adopted by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in discarding besides benumbing the reasoning afforded by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class in imputing probative credence to Ext.PA, does not suffer from any infirmity. Moreover, the mere fact of the defendants in their written statement having espoused the factum of, revocation deed constituted in Ext.DW-4/A to be ousting the probative worth or legal efficacy of Ext.PA also cannot per se be construable to be connoting their acquiescence qua the factum of Ext.PA, having been validly and duly executed qua his estate by deceased testator Lachhman in favour of the plaintiff, especially when an apposite issue qua Ex. PA having been validly and duly executed existing at Sr. No. 3 stood cast on the pleadings of the parties. The onus of proving whereof was cast upon the plaintiff hence entailed upon him to, dehors the aforesaid effect, if any, of the revocation of Ext.PA and it may be constituting acquiescence by the defendants qua the valid and due execution of Ext.PA by deceased Lachhman qua his estate in favour of the plaintiff Ram Dittu, adduce affirmative and cogent proof in discharge of its onus. Moreover, for reiteration the existence of the aforesaid apposite issue qua proof being adducible at his instance qua valid and due execution of Ex.PA besides, Peremptorily entailed upon the plaintiff Ram Dittu to hence discharge the onus of proving Ext.PA in the manner ordained by law inasmuch as his leading into the witness box attesting witnesses to it, besides its scribe in proof of its valid and due execution. The factum of casting of an apposite issue though encumbering the plaintiff to adduce proof qua the factum of valid and due execution of Ext.PA in his favour by deceased Lachhman qua the latter’s estate as a concomitant enjoined upon the plaintiff to discharge the said onus by adduction of apposite and legally ordained evidence by plaintiff Ram Dittu yet the plaintiff Ram Dittu omitted to discharge the onus. Obviously then for want of on the part of plaintiff Ram Dittu to discharge the onus cast upon him by the apposite issue relating to the valid and due execution of Ext.PA in his favour by Lachhman qua the latter’s estate, the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur could not erroneously conclude merely on the basis of advertence to purported acquiescences of the defendants existing in their written statement qua valid and due execution of Ext. PA which acquiescences, if any, for reasons aforesaid are ingrained with an inherent fallacy or construe that Ext.PA was duly and validly executed nor the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, could have concluded that hence the onus cast upon plaintiff Ram Dittu to prove by adducing legally efficacious evidence besides evidence of probative worth qua the factum of valid due execution of Ext.PA by deceased in favour of Ram Dittu stood discharged or was dispensable. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur having relieved the plaintiff Ram Dittu from discharging the onus cast upon him qua apposite issue No. 3 devolving upon the factum of valid and due execution of Ext.PA by deceased Lachhman qua his estate in his favour has, thereupon proceeded to, on grossly untenable grounds render an unwarrantable conclusion qua Ext.PA having been proved to be validly and duly executed by deceased testator Lachhman qua his estate in favour of plaintiff Ram Dittu. 9. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur had pronounced upon the factum of revocation deed Ext.DW-4/A in extinguishment of Ext.PA having been proved to be validly and duly executed. 9. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur had pronounced upon the factum of revocation deed Ext.DW-4/A in extinguishment of Ext.PA having been proved to be validly and duly executed. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur while proceeding to impute validity to Ext.DW-4/A had usurp the conclusions and findings qua its invalidity recorded by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur anvilled upon the factum of contentious Khasra No. 115 standing in the possession of DW-5 rendering hence oustable on the score of interestedness, the testimony of DW-5 one of the attesting witness to Ex.DW4/A. The reasons which prevailed upon the learned District Judge, Bilaspur to impute credence to the testimony of DW-5 in proof of valid and due execution of Ext.DW-4/A are tenably comprised in the factum of deceased Lachhman having during his life time alienated by way of gift Khasra No. 115 in favour of Ram Swaroop father of DW-5 several years back hence when the alienation of Khasra No. 115 in favour of DW-5 in the manner aforesaid occurred much prior to the execution of Ext.DW-4/A besides when it remained unimpeached during the life time of Lachhman hence the testimony of DW-5 while his being an attesting witness qua the valid execution of Ex.DW4/A could not either belittle his testimony nor render it oustable merely on the score of his interestedness arising from the factum aforesaid which occurred much prior to the execution of Ext.DW4/A. Moreover, the factum of DW-4 Jagan Nath, the scribe of Ext.DW-4/A, who proved the factum of Ext.DW-4/A having been drafted by him at the instance of and at the behest of deceased testator Lachhman, on completion of whose drafting by him, it having been read over and explained by him, to deceased Lachhman whereafter the latter thumb marked it, whereupon DW-5 and one Jagdish affixed their marks thereon as witnesses in the presence of deceased Lachhman, constitutes sinewed evidence qua Ex.DW4/A having been validly executed by deceased Lachhman qua his estate, especially when an incisive reading of the cross-examination of DW-4 omits to portray that the deceased Lachhman was beset with any exertion upon him of any coercion or any undue influence by DW-5 or by other defendants. Omission of a communication in the cross-examination of DW-4 qua preparation of Ext.DW-4/A arising from exercising of the deceased Lachhman any exertion, undue influence or any coercion by the defendants or DW-5 constrains a conclusion from this Court that Ext.DW-4/A was for reiteration voluntarily executed by deceased Lachhman qua his estate besides when the factum of its valid and due execution in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act has been proved by the recording of the deposition of one of attesting witnesses to it who has deposed as DW-5, whose testimony when underscores the factum of deceased Lachhman having thumb marked Ext.DW-4/A in the presence of the attesting witnesses to it, whereafter both, he and Jagdish in the presence of the deceased Lachhman put their respective marks thereon begets an apt inference of Ext.DW-4/A having been proved to be validly besides voluntarily executed by the deceased Lachhman. A perusal of Ex.DW4/A unearths the fact that the Sub Registrar concerned before whom it was presented for registration had prior to his proceeding to register it as manifested from an endorsement existing thereon readover and explained its contents to the deceased testator who on admitting its contents to be true thumb marked it, in his presence. Besides, the registration of Ex.DW4/A by the Sub Registrar concerned was preceded by DW-5 identifying the deceased Lachhman before the Sub Registrar concerned. The probative value of the endorsement of the Sub Registrar existing on Ex.DW4/A and its pronouncing the fact that on the deceased Lachhman having been explained the contents of Ex.DW4/A by the Sub Registrar concerned and on the former comprehending its contents, his having thumb marked it, in the presence of the Sub Registrar, construed in conjunction with the factum of DW-5 having identified the deceased Lachhman before the Sub Registrar concerned whereupon the latter proceeded to register it, constitutes reinforced evidence of formidable vigour along with the testimony of DW-5 qua the factum of valid and due execution of Ex.DW4/A, more so, when DW5 remained uncross-examined qua the factum of the deceased Lachhman having not appeared before the Sub Registrar nor is there evidence of probative worth that the thumb marks existing on Ex.DW4/A and attributed to deceased Lachhman do not belong to him. In aftermath an invincible conclusion is to be formed that with Ex.DW-4/A having been proved to be duly and validly executed, the rights, if any, which the Ram Dittu acquired in the suit property under Ex.-PA stood denuded, dwindled as well as extinguished. Moreover, the endorsement of Sub Registrar existing on Ext.DW-4/A belittles besides renders legally unworthwhile the effect, if any, of the interestedness of DW-5 and its impinging upon the factum of Ext.DW-4/A having been or not validly and duly executed by deceased Lachhman. 10. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur had concluded that defendant Ram Murti was without any right, title or interest holding possession of Khasra No.115. However, Ext.P-1, which is the Missal Haquiat, qua khasra number aforesaid for the year 1986-87 depicts the factum of it being in possession of deceased Lachhman yet in the settlement which was conducted in the mohal concerned in the year 1986-87 the defendant Ram Murti stands recorded therein to be holding possession of Khasra No. 115 as Gair Marusi. Even though an entry exists in the apposite Jamabandi qua khasra No. 115 of defendant Ram Murti being Gair Marusi therein, whose occurrence therein overwhelmed the Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur to conclude that with DW-5 having not deposed qua his being non-occupancy tenant under deceased Lachhman qua Khasra No. 115 constituted the said entry to be in conflict with his oral testimony wherein he asserted title to it, on the strength of its being gifted to his deceased father rendering him hence disabled to stake any right, title or interest qua khasra No.115. However, the Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, while concluding that the entry in the apposite record qua khasra No. 115 of DW-5 holding it as gair marusi while its being in conflict with his staking title to it on its having been gifted to his predecessor in interest, disabled DW-5 to claim title to the suit land, is an inherently fallacious conclusion, inasmuch as it emanates besides ensues on the entry aforesaid having been read fragmentarily, in isolation besides in a piecemeal manner, especially with the Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur, being wholly oblivious to the occurrence of an entry in the apposite column of rent of the apposite record qua khasra number 115 wherein there is a reflection of Ram Murti holding possession of Khasra number 115 as “bila lagan bewaja Dharmath”. Hence, when Ram Murthi was not paying rent to deceased Lachhman while holding possession of Khasra No.115 in sequel the mere occurrence of a depiction in the apposite record of his being gair marusi would not constitute him to be a gair marusi, unless the existence of a relationship of landlord and tenant arising from palpable evidence connoting payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord emanates. However, when the entry in the column of rent does not bespeak of rent thereto being paid or payable by Ram Murti to the land owner, the mere description of Ram Murti as a gair marusi in the apposite column would neither tantamount to theirs having come into existence inter-se him and deceased Lachhman any relationship of landlord and tenant nor oust the claim of Ram Murti to stake title to Khasra No.115 on the anchor of it having been gifted by deceased Lachhman to his father Ram Sarup which manner of assertion of title to it, stands in consonance with his standing depiction as “billa lagan bewaja dharamarth” in the apposite column of rent of the relevant record. In sequel, this Court concludes that the entry in the column of the rent of the apposite record qua Khasra No. 115 describing Ram Murti to be holding possession thereof without rent arising from the fact of delivery of its possession to him having arisen from Dharmath of the alienor rather gives succor to the espousal of the defendant Ram Murti, of it having been gifted in favour of his predecessor-in-interest by deceased Lachhman during his life time. Moreso, when the connotation of “Dharmarth” is akin to besides bears affinity to donation, as is a gift. 11. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur had while relying upon the testimony of DW-3 pronouncing the fact of defendants being the legal heir of Smt.Jhalla, who being the real sister of deceased Lachhman had hence concluded that with failure of proof at the instance of the plaintiff Ram Dittu qua valid and due execution of Ext.PA rather with the proof emanating qua valid and due execution of Ext.DW-4/A rendered the estate of deceased Lachhman to be inheritable by defendants 1 and 2. Even though the best evidence was not adduced at the instance of the defendants No. 1 and 2 to proof the factum of their mother Jhalla being the sister of deceased Lachhman nontheless when the common ancestor of both deceased Lachhman and Smt. Jhalla died before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act hence when Smt. Jhalla could not have inherited the estate of her deceased father hence when the preparation of the pedigree table or shajra nasab portrays the name of only those legal heirs who inherited the property of the deceased common ancestors obviously when Smt. Jhalla could not have given the factum of the demise of her predecessor in interest Hiru, having occurred prior to the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act inherited the estate of Hiru on the latter’s demise. Consequently, the non occurrence of her name in the Shajra nasab would not ipso facto constitute the fact of hers not being sister of deceased Lachhman nor would debar the defendants No.1 and 2 to inherit the estate of deceased Lachhman while being the legal heirs of Smt.Jhalla. Even otherwise the plaintiff in rebuttal evidence has omitted to examine the sisters of his father or his children to prove that Smt.Jhalla was not the sister of Lachhman. Consequently when he omits to rebut the testimony of DW-3 the Numberdar qua the factum of Jhalla being the sister of Lachhman, the mere fact of DW-3 being not related to deceased Lachhman would not oust his testimony qua Smt. Jhalla, being the sister of Lachhman. Consequently with defendants No. 1 and 2 being sons of Smt. Jhalla, sister of deceased Lachhman, are the legal heirs of deceased Lachhman hence on his demise are entitled to succeed his estate. Substantial questions law are accordingly answered. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree rendered by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, is affirmed and maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.