Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—The appellant, Col. Ami Lal Memorial Charitable Trust, Bhera, District Bhiwani (Haryana), has filed the present appeal against the order dated 27.07.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Mr. Bharat Ram Meena, RHJS, who was compulsorily retired by High Court in March, 2010) rejecting the Probate Application No.95/1998 : Col. Ami Lal Memorial Charitable Trust vs. Public at Large and Objector No.2 Sudesh Kumar S/o Ram Nath Jat and Objector No. 3 Rajendra Singh. 2. The probate proceedings were initiated by the applicant Trust in respect of a 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 executed by Smt. Chatari Devi W/o Col. Ami Lal, who herself died on 07.01.1998 after about two years of execution of the said 'Will'. Her husband namely, Col. Ami Lal had expired before her in the year 1990 itself. 3. The application aforesaid was filed by the applicant in the Court below 26.09.1998. Ami Lal, who herself died on 07.01.1998 after about two years of execution of the said 'Will'. Her husband namely, Col. Ami Lal had expired before her in the year 1990 itself. 3. The application aforesaid was filed by the applicant in the Court below 26.09.1998. The said application was rejected by the learned Court below, while deciding the issue No.1 that the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 was not proved by the applicant with the following findings recorded by the learned Court below:- ^^28- bl ekeys esa ;s ns[kuk gS fd olh;r izn'kZ 2 Jhefr prjhnsoh }kjk fdlds lkeus fy[kh xbZ vkSj fdlds lkeus prjhnsoh us ,oa xokgku us gLrk{kj fd;sA ;g rF; ;kph dks lkfcr djuk t:hj FkkA bl ekeys esa xokg fjlkyflag ,-M-1 us prjhnsoh dks vius lkeus olh;r izn'kZ 2 ij gLrk{kj djrs gq, ns[kus ls bUdkj fd;k gSA olh;r izn'kZ 2 dks voyksdu djus ls ;g ik;k x;k fd bl olh;r ds vuqizek.ku ds nks xokg euhjke ,oa jktsUnzflag gSA ftlds c;kuksa dk foospu fd;k tkuk olh;r dh vuqizek.ku dh n`f"V ls vko';d gSA xokg euhjke ,-M-2 olh;r izn'kZ 2ij lh ls Mh vius gLrk{kj gksuk vkSj Jhefr prjhnsoh ds }kjk gLrk{kj vius lkeus djuk crykrk gSA nwljk xokg jktsUnzflag Hkh gLrk{kj vius lkeus djuk crykrk gSA xokg euhjke ftjg ds c;ku esa ;g crykrk gS fd mls jktsUnzflag cqykdj yk;k Fkk ml le; prjhnsoh ,oa jktsUnz flag dh ekStwn Fks ijUrq izn'kZ 2 ij ogka ij gLrk{kj u djokdj fot;uxj esa djok;s Fks tks [ktkupan vjk;tuohl ds ?kj ij djok;s Fksa bl xokg us ftjg ds c;ku esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd olh;r izn'kZ 2 ds izFke o f}rh; ist ij mlds o prjhnsoh ds gLrk{kj ugha gS vkSj olh;r VkbZi djus okys [ktkupan us u rks eksgj yxkbZ vkSj u gLrk{kj fd;sa prjhnsoh us dgk fd dksVz tkus esa nks rhu ?kaVs yx tk;saxs lQsn dkxt ij o nhokj ij fy[kh py tkrh gS blfy, nks ?kaVs yxkuk csdkj gSA bl xokg us izn'kZ 2 ij [ktkupan ds gLrk{kj Hkh ugha gksus ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl xokg us bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus bl VªLV ls 10-15 ch?kk tehu [kjhnh Fkh] esjs ifjokj us fdruh [kjhnh ;kn ugha gSA bl xokg ds c;ku ls ;g fLFkfr Li"V gks xbZ gS fd mls jktsUnzflag cqykdj yk;k Fkk vkSj mlus prjhnsoh us rhu i`"Bksa dh olh;r esa ls i`"B la[;k 1 o 2 ij fdlh us gLrk{kj ugha fd;s dsoy i`"B la[;k 3 ij blus fot;uxj vkdj gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk crk;k gSA ;g xokg olh;r VkbZi djus okys [ktkupan ds bl olh;r ij gLrk{kj gksus ls badkj djrk gSA xokg jktsUnzflag tks vuqizek.ku dk lk{kh Fkk] mls ;kph dh vksj ls lk{; esa is'k ugha fd;kA ;g xokg v;kph@mtznkjku dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gSA jktsUnzflag Mh-M-2 us ;kph vf/koäk }kjk ftjg fd;s tkus ij ;g Li"V dj fn;k gS fd izn'kZ 2 ij xokg ds :i esa mlds gLrk{kj gs] ysfdu ;g gLrk{kj mlds Bsds dk dgdj djok;s FksA bl xokg us Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd prjhnsoh us mls lkeus dksbZ olh;r ugha dh FkhA vuqizek.ku dk ;g xokg olh;r izn'kZ 2 ij vius gLrk{kj djuk rks Lohdkj djrk gS] ysfdu prjhnsoh }kjk mlds lkeus olh;r fd;k tkuk badkj djrk gSA ;kph xokg fjlkyflag ,-M-1 us prjhnsoh dks olh;r ij gLrk{kj djrs gq, ns[kus ls badkj fd;k gS ,oa jktsUnzflag us vius gLrk{kj Bsds dk dgdj djuk crykrk gSA blus vius lkeus prjhnsoh ds gLrk{kj gksus ls badkj fd;k gSA prjhnsoh }kjk gLrk{kj djus ls badkj fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa olh;r izn'kZ 2 dks izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl olh;r dk vuqizekf.kr (Attested) gksuk lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA 29- nwljk xokg vuqizek.ku euhjke is'k gqvk gSA og vius gLrk{kj prjhnsoh ds lkeus fd;k tkuk vius c;kuksa esa ugha crykrk gSA xokg euhjke ds c;kuksa ls Hkh olh;r dk vuqizek.ku lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA olh;r ds vuqizek.ku ds nksuksa xokg olh;r ij gLrk{kj djrs ns[kk tkuk vko';d gS] ysfdu xokg euhjke o jktsUnzflag esa ls dksbZ Hkh xokg olh;r izn'kZ 2 ij prjhnsoh }kjk vius lkeus gLrk{kj djrs ugha ns[kuk crkrs gSa vkSj xokg olh;r VkbZi djus okyk [ktkupan lk{; esa is'k ugha gqvkA olh;r ds ist ua-1 o 2 ij olh;rdrkZ ,oa xokgku~ ds gLrk{kj ugha gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa olh;r izn'kZ 2 dks izkFkhZ@;kph ds xokgku ds c;kuksa esa vuqizekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA Jhefr prjhnsoh vius thoudky esa 4 ch?kk Hkwfe pd 24 th-ch- bl olh;r ds laca/k esa 'kadk mRiUu gksrh gSA;kph us VªLV MhM dh udy ;k mifu;e izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftlls ;g ekywe fd;k tk lds fd fjlkyflag dks bl ;kfpdk dks izLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA VªLV MhM ;k mifu;e ds laca/k esa lfpo gh fooknksa ls cpko djus dk vf/kdkj j[krk gS] ysfdu ;g ;kfpdk VªLV ds lfpo dh vksj ls is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA 30- izkFkhZ@;kph dh vksj ls xokg t;nso ,-M-3 is'k gqvk gS ftlus bl rudh ds laca/k esa dksbZ c;ku ugha fn;k gSA xokg duZy gokflag Hkh lk{; esa is'k gqvk gS ftldk bl rudh ds laca/k esa dksbZ c;ku ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;kph@izkFkhZ }kjk is'k fd;s x;s xokgku~ ds c;kuksa ls mijksä foospu ds vk/kkj ij olh;r izn'kZ 2 dk vuqizekf.kr (Attested) fof/k ds vuqlkj djk;k tkuk lkfcr ugha gks ik;k gSA blfy, ;g rudh uEcj 1 izkFkhZ@;kph ds fo:) fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA** 4. However, the learned Court below also decided the issue No.3 relating to “title” of the immovable properties situated at Chak 24 GB, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Sriganganagar which includes 4 bighas of agricultural land of executor of the 'Will' Smt. Chatari Devi and also the issue No.4 relating to the possession of the objector-Rajendra Singh and the issue No.5 relating to the land in question having been donated to the Panchayat of the Chak 24 GB for the purpose of setting up of a school, though these issues were strictly not relevant in the probate proceedings, but the learned Court below has framed the aforesaid issues and decided the same with the following findings:- ^^rudh uEcj 3 %& ^^vk;k okds pd 24 th-ch- ds eqjCck u-a 31 dh 4 ch?kk —f"k Hkwfe o edku dh Lokfeuh prjhnsoh ugha Fkh\** 32- rudh uEcj 3 dks lkfcr djus dk nkf;Ro ;kph ij FkkA ;kph us bl rudh dks lkfcr djus ds fy, xokg fjlky flag ,-M-1] euhjke ,-M-2] t;nso ,-M- 3] duZy gokflag ,-M-4 is'k fd;s gSA ysfdu buds c;kuksa ls rudh uEcj 3 ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh xbZ vkSj u gh fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ nLrkost izLrqr fd;k x;k gsA mtznkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr xokg jktsUnzflag o lqns'k pkS/kjh us 4 ch?kk Hkwfe ij vkSj vgkrs ij prjhnsoh dk dCtk ugha gksuk crk;k gSA vgkrksa dks Ldwy dks vkSj 4 ch?kk Hkwfe dks nku esa jktsUnzflag dks fn;k tkuk mtznkjku ds xokgku~ Mh-M-1 lqns'k pkS/kjh] Mh-M-2 jktsUnzflag] Mh-M-3 nkSyrjke] Mh-M-4 galjkt] Mh-M-5 vkseizdk'k o Mh-M-6 txnh'k izekf.kr djrs gSA jktsUnzflag dks Jherh prjhnsoh dk ekul iq= cuk;k tkuk vkSj crkSj ekul iq= mldk ikyu iks"k.k djuk vkSj 4 ch?kk tehu nku esa fn;k tkuk mtznkjku ds xokgku~ ds c;kuksa ls lkfcr gks tkrk gSA nku esa nh xbZ oLrqr dh fy[kki<+h ugha nh tk ldrhA bl lEifÙk dks fjlkyflag pqukSrh nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha j[krkA jktsUnzflag us bl Hkwfe ij viuk dCtk gksuk ,oa vgkrs ij viuk dCtk gksuk Lo;a ds vius c;ku ls lkfcr dj fn;k gSA bl rudh dk fu.kZ; ;kph ds fo:) ,oa v;kph ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA rudh uEcj 4 %& ^^vk;k prjhnsoh us of.kZr lEifÙk vius ekul iq= jktsUnzflag dks ns j[kh gS vkSj jktsUnzflag ml ij fujUrj dkfct gSA ;fn ,slk gS rks mldk D;k vlj gS\** 33- bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk nkf;Ro v;kphx.k@mtznkjku ij gSA mtznkjku@vkifÙkdrkZ xokgku Mh-M-1 lqns'k pkS/kjh] Mh-M-2 jktsUnzflag] Mh-M-3 nkSyrjke] Mh-M- 4 galjkt] Mh-M- 5 vkseizdk'k o Mh-M-6 txnh'k ds c;kuksa ls prjhnsoh }kjk vius ekul iq= jktsUnzflag dks 4 ch?kk Hkwfe ,oa ,d vgkrk fn;k tkuk vkSj mldk ml ij 25&30 lky ls fujUrj dCtk pys jgus ls og bl lEifÙk ij izfrdwy dCts ds fl)kUr ds vk/kkj ij ekfydkuk gd j[krk gSA og 24 th-ch- dh eqjCck ua-31 dh 4 ch?kk Hkwfe ,oa ,d vgkrs dk ekfyd cuus dk vf/kdkj j[krk gS mldk fujUrj dCtk gksus ls og 4 ch?kk Hkwfe ,oa vgkrs dk ekfyd cu tkrk gSA ;g rudh v;kphx.k@mtznkjku ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA rudh uEcj 5 %& ^^vk;k prjhnsoh us vius thoudky esa gh vgkrk ua-23 rk 28 dqy 6 vgkrs iapk;r 24 th-ch- ds Ldwy Hkou ds fy, nku dj fn;s Fks\** 34- bl fcUnq dks lkfcr djus dk nkf;Ro v;kph@vkifÙkdrkZ lqns'k pkS/kjh ij FkkA mlus bls lkfcr djus ds fy, Lo;a lqns'k pkS/kjh] jktsUnzflag] nkSyrjke] galjkt] vkseizdk'k o txnh'k ds c;ku djk;s gSA ftuds c;kuksa ls ;g ckr lkfcr gks tkrh gS fd bu vgkrksa ds laca/k esa lqns'kdqekj iapk;r ds ljiap us izLrko ikfjr dj prjhnsoh }kjk ekSf[kd :i ls nku fn;s tkus ij xokgku ds lkeus nku esa fy;s FksA nku nsuk vkSj nku ysuk xokgku ds c;kuksa ls lkfcr gS vkSj iapk;r dk izLrko Hkh bl laca/k esa fy;k x;k FkkAftlls ;g rudh iw.kZ :i ls v;kphx.k@vtznkjku ds i{k esa lkfcr gks tkrh gSA v;kph xokgku ds c;kuksa ls ;g lkfcr gks tkrk gS fd prjhnsoh us vius thoudky esa dqy 6 vgkrksa dks pd 24 th-ch- dks nku dj fn;k Fkk vkSj xkao 24 th-ch- ds ljiap }kjk bls Ldwy ds fy, xzg.k dj fy;k FkkA bl izdkj bl rudh dk fu.kZ; v;kphx.k@vkifÙkdrkZvksa ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA** 5. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the aforesaid probate application, the applicant Trust has filed the present Misc. Appeal in this Court on 29.10.2007. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, an interim order was passed by this Court on 04.07.2011 directing the objectors to hand over the possession of the immovable property, i.e., land in question to the applicant-Trust. The said order dated 04.07.2011 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.L. Jain urged that learned court below has grossly erred in rejecting the application for probate in favour of applicant-Trust known as “Col. Ami Lal Memorial Charitable Trust, Bhera District Bhiwani (Haryana)” in respect of movable and immovable properties situated at Sri Ganganagar. He further submitted that one of the respondent Rajendra Singh himself was the attesting witness of the 'Will' and the other respondent Sudesh Kumar, was the Sarpanch at the relevant of point of time. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that Col. Ami Lal expired issue-less, therefore, his wife, namely, Smt. Chatri Devi during her lifetime executed a “Will” on 25.03.1996 in favour of appellant- Trust, which is a public charitable and educational trust, however, later on she expired on 07.01.1998. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits thereafter, a Trust Deed was executed on 28.03.1992 by Major General Risal Singh (Retd.), Brigadier Amar Singh Sangwan (Retd.) and Pratap Singh S/o late Sh. Jag Ram (brother of Col. Ami Lal). He further submits that on the basis of Will for execution thereof, the appellant- Trust applied for probate. However, since the probate has been refused in favour of appellant-Trust at the instance of said two respondents i.e. respondents No.1 and 2, they continue to be in possession over the bequeathed property illegally, namely, agricultural land measuring of about 4 Bighas of agricultural land and 10 plots of land and other movable and immovable properties as per details given in the Will dated 25.03.1996. He further submitted that Col. Ami Lal died issue-less and, therefore, these army personnel colleagues of father of Col. Ami Lal and himself have created the said trust under the Will executed by Smt. Chatri (wife of Col. Ami Lal) and the property was to be given to the said Trust as beneficiary for charitable purpose. He further submitted that Col. Ami Lal died issue-less and, therefore, these army personnel colleagues of father of Col. Ami Lal and himself have created the said trust under the Will executed by Smt. Chatri (wife of Col. Ami Lal) and the property was to be given to the said Trust as beneficiary for charitable purpose. He further submitted that possession of the bequeathed property deserves to be given the said Trust subject to final decision of this appeal against the order impugned rejecting the probate in favour of appellant- trust. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. H.S. Sandhu opposed the said request of the appellant and submitted that 'Will' in question has been found by the court below to be false and forged. 5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that no cogent reasons are found in the impugned order for rejecting the said application for probate in favour of appellant. It is also noticed that one of the respondent (Rajendra Singh) himself was the attesting witness of the said Will, and prima-facie the 'Will' appears to have been proved in accordance with law by AW.1 Mani Ram and the respondent Rajendra Singh (respondent No.2) himself, hence, prima-facie, the rejection order appears to be not sustainable. 6. The matter requires further consideration. 7. Admit. Fresh notice need not be issued as the parties are served. Record has already been received. 8. List the appeal for hearing in due course. 9. Heard for grant of interim relief also. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that during pendency of this appeal subject to final decision of the appeal, the entire property (movable and immovable properties) bequeathed by late Smt. Chatri under the Will date 25.03.1996 shall be handed over to the Trustee(s) of the appellant- Trust. The details of such Trustee(s) has been given in the Trust Deed dated 28.03.1992, namely, 1. Major General Risal Singh (Retd.), 2. Lt. Col. Umed Prakash, 3. Amar Chand S/o Jas Ram, 4. Sube Singh S/o Sri Chand, 5. Anand Dev S/o Harphool Singh, 6. Smarath Kumar S/o Ram Chand, and 7. Subedar Manor Ram Saroop S/o Har Dayal Chahar. 11. Major General Risal Singh (Retd.), 2. Lt. Col. Umed Prakash, 3. Amar Chand S/o Jas Ram, 4. Sube Singh S/o Sri Chand, 5. Anand Dev S/o Harphool Singh, 6. Smarath Kumar S/o Ram Chand, and 7. Subedar Manor Ram Saroop S/o Har Dayal Chahar. 11. The possession of all the properties may be handed over to any one or jointly to more of aforesaid trustees as may be authorized by the Trust within a period of one month from today. The Trust shall be entitled to use the said movable and immovable properties for the purposes of aforesaid charitable trust in accordance with provisions of the Trust Deed itself. The revenue authorities and police administration may provide necessary aid to the appellant-Trust or its duly authorized person/s, if required. 12. The stay application is accordingly disposed of.” 7. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 04.07.2011, the respondents-objectors preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court namely, Civil Appeal No.564/2012 in SLP (C) No.25665/2011 titled as “Sudesh Kumar & Anr. vs. Ami Lal Memorial Charitable Trust & Anr.” which came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.01.2012 with the following order:- “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2012 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 25665 OF 2011 SUDESH KUMAR & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUS Ami LAL CHAR. TRUST & ANR. Respondent (s) ORDER Leave granted. We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 4.7.2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in respect of the property in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appeal which has been admitted by the High Court as a First Appeal should be disposed of by the High Court as early as possible but preferably within one year from date. The parties will co-operate with the High Court. In the meantime, for proper maintenance of the property in dispute, we are directing the trustees to nominate one representative. Petitioner No.1 and the said nominee will continue as joint receivers in the property in question till the appeal is decided by the High Court. The joint Receivers will be furnishing account of the property to the High Court every three months. The appeal is disposed of. No costs. Petitioner No.1 and the said nominee will continue as joint receivers in the property in question till the appeal is decided by the High Court. The joint Receivers will be furnishing account of the property to the High Court every three months. The appeal is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- J (ASHOK KUMAR GANGULY) Sd/- J (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR) New Delhi; Dated: JANUARY 16, 2012” 8. The matter was thereafter was heard today at length. 9. The learned counsel Mr. S.L. Jain appearing for the appellant-Trust submitted that the learned Court below has erred in rejecting the probate application even though execution and validity of the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 executed by Smt. Chatari Devi W/o Col. Ami Lal was duly proved by the attesting witnesses namely, Mani Ram and Rajendra Singh himself and he submitted that Rajendra Singh, one of the objectors, was himself one of the attesting witnesses, who did put signature on the said 'Will' as attesting witness but merely stated that the said signature was appended by him treating the document as a contract Bsdk and not the 'Will' executed by Smt. Chatari Devi W/o Col. Ami Lal. The learned counsel also submitted that the statement of Mani Ram to the effect that it is wrong to say that the said 'Will' was written before me and it is also wrong to say that Chatari Devi signed the 'Will' before me and these averments were never controverted by cross-examination to the contrary and even with the attestation of one of the witnesses, the execution and validity of the said 'Will' was proved and, therefore, in these circumstances, the probate could not have been denied by the learned Trial Court. 10. He submitted that the couple, Col. Ami Lal and Smt. Chatari Devi, died issueless and the Trust in question was a Public Charitable Trust created for the object of doing charitable activities and establishment of educational institutions and its trustees, as per the Trust Deed dated 28.03.1992, namely, (1) Major General Risal Singh (Retd), (2) Brigadier Amar Singh Sangwan (Retd.) and (3) Pratap Singh, all sons of late Jag Ram were real brothers of Col. Ami Lal and the Trust was the beneficiary of the said 'Will' and there was no cloud of suspicion around the said 'Will' and the said Rajendra Singh and Sudesh Kumar, the other objector, who is the nephew of executrix of the 'Will' Smt. Chatari Devi, wanted to grab the said immovable properties namely, 4 bighas of agricultural land situated at Chak 24 GB, Srivijaynagar and that is why, they have objected to the said 'Will' under the garb of the statement that the said land of 4 bighas was donated orally by Smt. Chatari Devi in favour of the Gram Panchayat for establishment of a school whereas, no such oral gift or donation of immovable property could be made. No written document was ever executed for this or produced before the learned Court below and, therefore, this could not be accepted by the learned Court below as a valid objection, as against the validity of the 'Will' and the learned Court below has erred in not only admitting the possession of the objector Rajendra Singh over the land but also in holding that the Rajendra Singh is the owner of the land in question on the basis adverse possession over the said land in question. The learned counsel submitted that the findings are perverse in nature and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 11. The learned counsel submitted that the present application for probate by the Trust deserves to be allowed and the probate on the basis of 'Will' of late Smt. Chatari Devi dated 25.03.1996 deserves to be given in favour of the applicant-Trust. 12. Per contra, the learned counsels Mr. Suresh Shrimali and Mr. Rajesh Joshi appearing for the respondents-objectors vehemently contended that the appellant-Trust was created only with a view to grab the properties of the deceased Smt. Chatari Devi W/o Col. Ami Lal by the brothers of late Col. Ami Lal and the said trustees are said to be living in the State of Haryana and were dealing with the properties of late Col. Ami Lal. Ami Lal by the brothers of late Col. Ami Lal and the said trustees are said to be living in the State of Haryana and were dealing with the properties of late Col. Ami Lal. It was submitted that the 'Will' talked about the properties situated in the State of Rajasthan only and not of the properties situated at Delhi and in the State of Haryana but the appellant Trust is claiming probate on the basis of the said 'Will' executed by Smt. Chatari Devi in relation to the properties situated at Chak 24 GB, Srivijaynagar, Sriganganagar in the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, the present probate application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 13. Casting the ring of doubt around the said 'Will', the learned counsels urged that admittedly, the said 'Will' is running in three pages and on the first two pages, there are no signatures of Smt. Chatari Devi and any of the two attesting witnesses and the repetitive description of the properties was typed on the initial pages was merely to fill up the three pages and to reach at the place, where the signatures were already obtained from late Smt. Chatari Devi. 14. Assailing the statements of the attesting witnesses, the learned counsels submitted that the witnesses and the attesting witness Mani Ram admitted in his cross-exAmiation that the signatures of Smt. Chatari devi were not appended on the said 'Will' in front of him and explaining the signatures of the objector Rajendra Singh, whom they called ^^ekul iq=** (adopted son) of the couple, who was living with the couple since his childhood and he had appended his signatures as an attesting witnesses believing the said document to be a contract for giving the agricultural land on the basis of contract Bsdk for cultivating the same and Smt. Chatari Devi did not sign the said 'Will' in his presence. It is also submitted that the aforesaid attesting witness Mani Ram was an interested witness, since he had purchased some agricultural land from Risal Singh, who is one of the trustees and one of the beneficiary under the alleged 'Will' of late Smt. Chatari Devi executed on 25.03.1996 and, therefore, his signatures as attesting witness and his statement in support thereof should not be believed. 15. 15. The learned counsels also contended that the Trust Deed, which was deliberately not produced before the learned Trial Court, for the reasons best known to the appellant, but a copy of the same has been placed on the record of this Court without any permission of the Court or without moving any application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same. The learned counsels submitted that a bare look at the aforesaid Trust Deed would show that it is situated in the State of Haryana at village Bhera and, therefore, the immovable properties situated within the State of Rajasthan cannot be given to the said Trust and hence, the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 executed by late Smt.Chatari Devi was rightly disbelieved and the probate application was rightly rejected by the learned Court below. 16. The learned counsels also drew the attention of the Court towards the statement of Risal Singh, a trustee of the said Trust, and submitted that he has admitted in the statement that properties in question were sought to be taken in the Trust but they themselves did not contribute anything in the creation of the said Trust and all the properties were of late Col. Ami Lal, their brother and, therefore, the learned counsels submitted that it is clear that the main objective for creation of the Trust was to grab the properties of late Smt. Chatari Devi situated within the State of Rajasthan. 17. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the record of the case, the reasons assigned by the learned Court below for rejecting the probate application of the appellant and the statements of the witnesses read at the bar. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the present Misc. Appeal of the Trust deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.07.2007 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Firstly, the questions relating to the title and possession over the land in question could not have been decided in the present case, seeking probate, in favour of the objector-Rajendra Singh and which were unnecessarily decided by the learned Court below, which casts serious doubt on the tenor and object of framing of the aforesaid issues and decision thereupon by the learned Court below. This Court is also of the opinion that the learned Court below has committed serious error, while dealing with the core issue of proving of the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 by the two attesting witnesses. 19. In the quoted portion of para 28 above, while narrating the statement of PW-2 Mani Ram, the learned Court below clearly states that, ^^xokg euhjke ,-M-2 olh;r izn'kZ 2 ij lh ls Mh vius gLrk{kj gksuk vkSj Jhefr prjhnsoh ds }kjk gLrk{kj vius lkeus djuk crykrk gSA** 20. On the next page, the learned Court below misread that statement and in the beginning of para 29 observes as under:- ^^nwljk xokg vuqizek.ku euhjke is'k gqvk gSA og vius gLrk{kj prjhnsoh ds lkeus fd;k tkuk vius c;kuksa esa ugha crykrk gSA** 21. The said contradiction is clear from para 3 of the ExAmiation-in-Chief Affidavit filed by Mani Ram, PW-2, in which he states as under:- ^^eSa lR;fu"BkiwoZd dFku djrk gwa fd Jherh prjhnsoh us vkt ls djhc 7 o"kZ iwoZ ,d olh;r fy[kkbZ Fkh tks [ktkupUn vthauohl us VkbZi dh Fkh] tSlh ckr Jherh prjhnsoh us crk;h oSlh gh fy[kh Fkh] i<+dj Hkh lquk fn;k Fkk ftls lgh ekudj Jherh prjhnsoh us vius gLrk{kj viuh bPNk ls fcuk fdlh ncko ds LoLFk fpr fgUnh esa dj fn;s] fQj jktsUnzflag us xokgh ds nLr[kr fd;s ,oa mlds ckn eSaus nLr[kr fd;s] ;g olh;r izn'kZ 2] ns[kdj eS dgrk gwa fd ;gh og olh;r gS] bl ij prjhnsoh us gLrk{kj , ls ch esjs lkeus fd;s Fks] rkjh[k Hkh yxk;h Fkh esjs gLrk{kj lh ls Mh gSA bl bPNk i= izn'kZ 2 dk nqljk xokg jktsUnz flag gS ftlds gLrk{kj bZ ls ,Q gSA Jherh prjhnsoh dks jktsUnzflag] Jherh prjhnsoh dh gh dke esa pd 24 th-ch- ls Jhfot;uxj ysdj x;k Fkk mlh esa eSa lkFk x;k FkkA** 22. In the cross-examination of the said witness PW-2 Mani Ram, he clearly states that, ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd olh;r esjs lkeus u fy[kh x;h gks] ;g dguk xyr gS fd prjhnsoh us esjs lkeus gLrk{kj u fd, gksA** 23. In the cross-examination of the said witness PW-2 Mani Ram, he clearly states that, ^^;g dguk xyr gS fd olh;r esjs lkeus u fy[kh x;h gks] ;g dguk xyr gS fd prjhnsoh us esjs lkeus gLrk{kj u fd, gksA** 23. Thus, the statement of one of the attesting witnesses namely, Mani Ram clearly proves execution of the said alleged 'Will' and, therefore, validity of the 'Will' cannot be assailed, as it is only the requirement of law and the 'Will' is neither required to be registered nor is required to be attested by more than two attesting witnesses, which is done in the present case. 24. The second witness Rajendra Singh himself, who in his ExAmiation-in-Chief Affidavit filed on 26.02.2004 does not even state anything about his signatures on the alleged 'Will' but on the contrary, talks of his living with the couple since his childhood and the land in question measuring 4 bighas situated at Chak 24 GB, Srivijaynagar having been donated by Smt. Chatari Devi for the purpose of setting up of a school and his possession over the said land and in examination-in-chief, he states that Ex. 2 ('Will') does not bear his signatures, but in his cross-examination, he clearly admits that on Ex.2 'Will' he has signed as an attesting witness but the same was signed by believing the said document not as a 'Will' but as a contract ¼Bsdk½ . 2 ('Will') does not bear his signatures, but in his cross-examination, he clearly admits that on Ex.2 'Will' he has signed as an attesting witness but the same was signed by believing the said document not as a 'Will' but as a contract ¼Bsdk½ . The relevant portion of cross-examination is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^eSa lkr i<+k fy[kk gwW nLdr djrk gwWA izn'kZ 2 olh;r ij xokg ds :i esa esjs gLrk{kj gS vt [kqn dgk fd ;s nLdr esjs ls Bsds dk dgdj djok;s Fks prjhnsoh us esjs lkeus dksbZ olh;r ugha dh FkhA esjh i<+kbZ HkSjk esa gqbZ gSA 'kknh Hkh HkSjk esa gqbZ tks duZy lkgc us djok;h Fkh tks 1981 esa gqbZ FkhA esjh 'kknh ds dksbZ QksVks ugha [khaph xbZ vkSj dksbZ dkMZ Hkh ugha Niok;sA Ldwy esa esjs firk dk uke j.kohj flag fy[kk gqvk gSA prjhnsoh gLrk{kj djrh FkhA izn'kZ 2 ij , ls ch gLrk{kj esjs ls i<+s ugha tk jgs blfy, eSa dg ugha djrk fd D;k fy[kk gqvk gSA eSa fj'kkyflag th dks i= fy[krk jgrk FkkA VªLV dh tehu esjs ikl Bsds ij Fkh ftlds ckjs esa eSa mudks i= fy[krk jgrk FkkA eSa fj'kkyflag th dks vUrZns'kh; i= fy[krk FkkA eSa fj'kkyflag th dks vUrZns'kh; i= fy[krk FkkA izn'kZ 12 ls 20 rd leLr i= esjs }kjk esjs gh gkFk ls fy[ks gq, gSA ;g lgh gS fd lqns'k us VªLV dh Qly cspus esa :dkoV dh Fkh rks eSaus fjlkyflag th dks bldh f'kdk;r dh Fkh tks i= }kjk dh Fkh vt [kqn dgk fd lqns'k o fj'kkyflag dk vkil esa iSls ds ysunsu dk fookn Fkk ftlds ckjs esa eSaus iapk;r dks cSBdj QSlyk djok fy;k FkkA eSa lkjh Qly VªLV ds uke] ls ugha cfYd vius uke ls cspk djrk Fkk vt [kqn dgk fd tjuy lkgc ds ekQZr cspk djrk FkkA ifpZ;k fglkc fdrkc ugha gS lkjkfglkc eSaus bl i=ksa esa gh fy[kk gS tks izn'kZ 12 ls 20 gSaA ;g lgh gS fd V~;wcoSy prjhnsoh us yxk;k Fkk vkSj duSD'ku Hkh mUgha ds uke ls gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd HkSjk xkao esa esjk jk'ku dkMZ o oksVjfyLV cuk gks vt [kqn dgk 24 th-ch- esa cuk gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSa flokuh esa dHkh ugha jgkA 90 ls 93 rd eSa 24 th-ch- esa jgkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd prjhnsoh us 90 esa eq>s ukSdjh ls fudky fn;k gksA eSa VªsDVj lh[kus fglkc ugha x;kA eSa VªLV ds VªsDVj dks 24 th-ch- esa ughja pykrk Fkk MªkbZoj pykrk Fkk eSa rks ns[kHkky djrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eqjCck ua-29 ds fdyk ua-2021] 22 o 24 dh tekcanh o fxjnkojh prjhnsoh ds uke gS vt [kqn dgk fd eq>s vius thoudky esa prjhnsoh ns x;h Fkh vkSj eSa vkt rd mUgsa dk'r dj jgk gwW vkSj eq>s ,d vgkrk 22 ch Hkh fn;k gS fleas eSa jg jgk gwWA ;g lgh fd eq>s pkj ch?ks tqckuh fn, Fks dksbZ fy[kr i<+r ugha gqbZA** 25. About his relation with the executrix Smt. Chatari Devi in his cross-exAmiation, about 4 bighas of agricultural land in question, he admits that the said 4 bighas of land was given to him orally by Smt. Chatari Devi and there was no written document for this purpose. The relevant portion of the crossexAmiation is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^;g lgh gS fd pkj ch?ks tqckuh fn, Fks dksbZ fy[kr i<+r ugha gqbZ** 26. About his relationship with the executrix Smt. Chatari Devi, the witness Rajendra Singh admits that there was no written document for his adoption by the said couple. The relevant portion of the cross-exAmiation is quoted herein below for ready reference:- ^^;g lgh gS fd esjs dks ekul iq= cukus dh dksbZ fy[kki<+h ugha gS vt [kqn dgk fd esjs firk ls ekaxdj yk;s FksA** 27. The stand of the said attesting witness DW-2 Rajendra Singh to the extent of his signing on the 'Will', therefore, definitely proves the execution of the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 but his purported explanation of the said document not as a 'Will' but as a contract ¼Bsdk½ , is nothing but a tissue of lies and is unbelievable. 28. Firstly, the objector Rajendra Singh was neither clearly an adopted son of the couple nor the term ^^ekul iq=^^ has any legal connotation in law. A simple acquaintance with the family does not entitle the objector to inherit the property of the couple. Though, it is true that the property can be bequeathed by way of 'Will' even in favour of a stranger but, in the present case, the objector has taken contradictory stands before the Court below. Sometimes, he says that the land in question has been donated to the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of setting up of a school but sometimes, he states that the land in question was given to him orally by Smt. Chatari Devi and sometimes, he says that he has signed the document ('Will') but the same he believed to be a contract Bsdk . 29. A man, who is 7th standard pass and is of 41 years of age at the time of deposing before the learned Court below on 26.02.2004 cannot be believed to have not understood the document in its correct perspective. 29. A man, who is 7th standard pass and is of 41 years of age at the time of deposing before the learned Court below on 26.02.2004 cannot be believed to have not understood the document in its correct perspective. Therefore, as far as, attestation by him, as an attesting witness of the 'Will', is concerned, that has to be taken true and thus, the 'Will' clearly stood proved before the learned Court below. 30. The cloud of suspicion, sought to be raised for the appellant-Trust like, the Trust having its address and activities within the State of Haryana or the trustees not contributing anything for creating the trust in question or that the immovable properties of the couple, late Col. Ami Lal and Smt. Chatari Devi, situated within the State of Rajasthan cannot be bequeathed by way of 'Will' upon the said Trust and the repetitive description of the properties on the pages of 'Will', are all very weak, untenable and sham excuses, nor the entitlement of Smt. Chatari Devi to execute the said 'Will' is affected as the same is not even doubted by the objectors. It is not the case of the objectors that the said Smt. Chatari Devi had no right to bequeath the said property by way of 'Will' in favour of the appellant Trust in question. The requirement of law namely, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been fulfilled and are clearly established in the present case. The 'Will' in question has been executed by a duly authorised person having right to execute the said 'Will' and signed by its executrix and also attested by the two independent witnesses, therefore, all the requirements of law are clearly established in the present case. 31. No controverting or contra evidence has been produced before the learned Trial Court or even before this Court to show that the 'Will' was executed in suspicious circumstances or was not duly signed by its executrix Smt. Chatari Devi, in the presence of two witnesses, who also appended their signatures on the same, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant succeeds in proving the 'Will' and its entitlement to get the property for Trust. 32. 32. The contention that this property is situated within the State of Rajasthan and the contention of the learned counsels for the respondents that the Trustees did not contribute anything for creation of Trust, is neither here nor there. The Trustees, who are the managers of the Trust, are not supposed to contribute anything towards the corpus for creation of the Trust but they are the persons responsible for management of the trust affairs and who are the persons responsible for execution of the objects of the Trust and the also responsible for the properties of the Trust. It is not the requirement of the law that the trustees should contribute anything towards the creation of the Trust. Nor the address of the Trust, in the present case, being within the State of Haryana de bars any Trust from having the properties situated within the State of Rajasthan, as in the present case, given to it by way of a validly executed 'Will'. 33. The allegations against Rishal Singh, one of the Trustees in the statements read before this Court, also are of no value and cannot demolish the object and creation of the said Trust or that the said Trust was created with a view to grab the property of late Smt. Chatari Devi, who is the wife of late Col. Ami Lal and real brother of the Trustees of the Trust. The non-filing of the said Trust Deed before the learned Trial Court or before this Court has no bearing on the validity of the 'Will' itself. 34. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that viewed from any angle, the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application for probate of the applicant Trust on wholly untenable grounds and has fallen into error of framing and deciding the issues of possession and title over the said property which were not even relevant in the present proceedings for probate like the issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5, quoted herein above and, therefore, the present appeal of the applicant-Trust deserves to be allowed and those findings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 35. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeal filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant Trust is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2007 of the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar is set aside. 35. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeal filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant Trust is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.07.2007 of the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to issue the Probate in favour of the applicant-Trust in terms of the 'Will' dated 25.03.1996 of late Smt. Chatari Devi W/o of late Col. Ami Lal within a period of one month from today. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Srigangangar and to the parties concerned. No costs. 36. Record of the Trial Court may be sent back immediately.