JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11.10.1993 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal no. 302/1988 and judgment dated 21.1.1988 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge, Meerut in O.S. no.-117/1983. 2. The Original Suit no.-117/1983 was filed by plaintiff Dr. Shiv Kumar son of Musaddi Lal against his real brother Moolchand (defendant no.-2) and his wife Smt. Kiran (defendant no.-1). The plaint case in brief was that disputed house was joint family property of the parties. When there arose some dispute between co-owners, then they entered into oral family settlement in year 1975, in which it was agreed that plaintiff Shiv Kumar will get half share of disputed property, the defendant no.-2 Moolchand will get remaining half share of this property, and their father Musaddi Lal had relinquished his share of ownership of disputed property, who will have no ownership right in it. On the basis of this family settlement, a written memorandum dated 18.3.1979 was executed between the parties. Musaddi Lal died on 20.2.1980. Thereafter the plaintiff came to know that defendants claim that Musaddi Lal had executed any will in favour of defendant no.-1 Smt. Kiran. Since such will was illegal and ineffective because disputed property was already partitioned and said family settlement of year 1975 was acted upon between the parties, therefore plaintiff had asked him for cancellation of said will-deed. But when defendants declined, then plaintiff had filed original suit for cancellation of said will-deed on the ground that he is owner of half share, said will-deed could not be executed because of earlier family settlement and that at the time of execution of will-deed Musaddi Lal was critically ill for long time and was not in his senses to execute such deed. 3. In their written-statement, defendants denied the plaint averments and submitted that disputed house was not joint family property, but it was owned exclusively by Musaddi Lal. There had never been any oral family settlement or execution of written memorandum of family settlement. Musaddi Lal was not ill and was always in his senses till his death. He had executed will-deed in his full senses before his death on 20.2.1980 at 5: 20 p.m. Suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 4. There had never been any oral family settlement or execution of written memorandum of family settlement. Musaddi Lal was not ill and was always in his senses till his death. He had executed will-deed in his full senses before his death on 20.2.1980 at 5: 20 p.m. Suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 4. After affording opportunity of hearing to parties, the Second Additional Civil Judge, Meerut had decreed the original suit by its judgment dated 21.1.1988 for the relief sought. In this judgment, trial court had given specific finding that property in question was joint family property, which was earlier partitioned and then on 18.3.1979 the family arrangement and memorandum relating to it was written which had been acted upon between the parties, through which plaintiff Shiv Kumar and defendant no.-2 Moolchandra had became owner of half share each of the disputed property and came in possession of said property in accordance with their share. Trial court had also discussed all evidences including the testimony of mother of plaintiff and defendant no.-2 namely, Tulsa Devi, who had appeared on behalf of defendant-appellants and stated that the disputed property had already been partitioned formally and thereafter plaintiff Shiv Kumar and defendant Moolchandra came in separate possession of their shares, and they cannot use the property came in share of other person. On the basis of oral evidences of both the parties, the trial court had reached to the conclusion that family partition was done and acted upon between the parties. On the basis of these evidences, trial court had decreed the suit. 5. Against the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal no. 302/1988, Smt. Kiran & Another Vs. Dr. Shiv Kumar, was preferred, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 11.10.1993 of Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut. In this judgment, lower appellate court had held that the will in question allegedly execution by Musaddi Lal in favour of defendant no.-1 Smt. Kiran was not validly executed will. At the time of execution of said will its executant Musaddi Lal was critically ill for some time and was not in position to understand the contents of will and executed it with sound mind. With these findings, first appellate court had confirmed the judgment of trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. At the time of execution of said will its executant Musaddi Lal was critically ill for some time and was not in position to understand the contents of will and executed it with sound mind. With these findings, first appellate court had confirmed the judgment of trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. Against the judgment of trial court as well as first appellate court, present second appeal has been preferred by defendant of the original suit. 7. Appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the finding on issue no.-1 is hit by provisions of Benami transaction Act 1984 since the property was purchased exclusively in the nature of three persons and thus in view of the said act cannot be held to be joint Hindu Family property? 2. Whether right of relinquishment and surrender requires registration and therefore the alleged family settlement was no settlement in the eye of law and was inadmissible for all intends and purpose?" 8. Issue no.-1, as framed by trial court is reproduced as under: - "Whether the will-deed dated 20.2.1980 was obtained from late Sri Musaddi Lal in the circumstances as alleged in the plaint?" 9. In plaint, it was specifically mentioned that since before the time of execution of will-deed in question Musaddi Lal was critically ill due to tuberculosis and was under treatment of doctors, his position was regularly deteriorating and he was unable to understand his well beings and was unconscious at the time of execution of will-deed in question and died same day. These plaint averments were denied in written-statement, so above mentioned issue no.-1 was framed by trial court, for which parties had adduced evidences, in which the doctor carrying out the treatment of late Musaddi Lal was examined and also the wife of said executant was examined. After appreciating evidences, trial court had given finding that during the period of execution of will-deed and before it Musaddi Lal was critically ill due to advance stage of tuberculosis, anemia and dehydration, he was unable to move, occasionally he used to come in consciousness but was unable to understand things and on the day of execution of will, his position was more worse. According to finding of trial court, evidences prove that instead of signature only thumb impression of Musaddi Lal was found on will-deed, which indicates that he was unable to sign due to his lack of consciousness. After appreciating the evidences relating to execution of will including the testimony of Smt. Tulsa Devi, mother of plaintiff and defendant no.-2, and of other witnesses the trial court had given finding that the will-deed in question was not properly executed by Musaddi Lal because he was unable to understand and think due to his serious ailment. Accordingly, trial court had decided the first issue framed by it in affirmative and in favour of plaintiff-respondents. The evidences adduced by the parties, the manner of their discussion by trial court as well as the reasons for reaching to aforesaid conclusions apparently leads to the conclusion that finding of trial court in that regard are correct and acceptable. The person who cannot move or sign and is undergoing treatment for long period and was suffering from anemia, dehydration and regular fit of unconsciousness was said to have gone for execution of registered will without any medical support. The oral evidences of wife of Musaddi Lal as well as other evidences are such that reveals the conclusions reached by the trial court are correct. 10. The first appellate court had also independently appreciated arguments as well as the evidences adduced during the trial and gave its specific finding that Musaddi Lal was critically ill at the time of death, he was able to move or understand, and could not even put his signatures. The circumstances stated regarding execution of will-deed in question are suspicious. With such findings, the lower appellate court had held that will in question was not validly executed by Musaddi Lal and the findings given by the trial court on this point cannot be assailed. 11. Thus, there has been concurrent finding of fact of the two lower courts that the will-deed in question allegedly executed by Musaddi Lal was, in fact, not validly executed document because at the time of its execution its alleged execution the executant Musaddi Lal was not in a position to understand its contents or his own well beings and was not in conscious state. Therefore, on this ground alone, the conclusion and findings of the two lower courts regarding will-deed in question being liable to be cancelled is found correct. This finding of the two lower courts is based on proper appreciation of evidences and are neither infirm nor perverse. Such findings cannot be interfered in second appeal by re-appreciation of evidences. These findings are confirmed. 12. In light of above finding, it becomes immaterial as to whether disputed property was self acquired property of Musaddi Lal or it was joint Hindu Family property purchased through Benami transaction in his name. Since it is proved that will-deed in question was executed in above mentioned circumstances, therefore, said will-deed is void and liable to be cancelled. Therefore, being sons of Musaddi Lal and member of Joint Hindu Family, the plaintiff and defendant no.-2 had equal share in this property and defendant no.-1 (wife of defendant no.-2) had no right in this disputed property. 13. After appreciation of evidences, trial court as well as the lower appellate court had independently but concurrently held that family settlement was made between the parties under which plaintiff and defendant no.-1 had came in possession and title of half share each of disputed property, and share of Musaddi Lal in this property was relinquished by him. The defendants' witness Smt. Tulsa Devi, the mother of defendant-appellant no.-2, had proved the family partition and that the same was acted upon and implemented before and after the death of Musaddi Lal. She stated that both the brothers Shiv Kumar and Moolchandra had came in separate and distinct shares of disputed property with its exclusive possession and one had no right to use or interfere the property came in share of the other brother. The averment of earlier family arrangement of mutual partition has been found correct by trial court as well as by the lower appellate court, which is proof of the fact that plaint case regarding family arrangement of partition had been acted upon and finalized between the parties. The averment of earlier family arrangement of mutual partition has been found correct by trial court as well as by the lower appellate court, which is proof of the fact that plaint case regarding family arrangement of partition had been acted upon and finalized between the parties. If it is accepted for the sake of argument that said family arrangement was not legally acceptable, even in such eventuality, in absence of any right being transferred or bequeathed to defendant no.-1/appellant no.-1 Smt. Kiran on the basis of illegally executed will-deed in question, the equal share of rights in disputed property had gone in share of plaintiff and defendant no.-1 each, as also proved from the evidence of their mother. Therefore it is hereby held that in either case, whether the disputed property was Joint Hindu Family property of the parties or it was solely acquired by late Musaddi Lal, the half share of plaintiff-respondent and remaining half share of defendant no.1-respondent no.-2 in it is proved from available evidences as has been held by the two lower courts. Accordingly, first substantial question of law is decided against the appellants and in favour of respondent. 14. It is a fact that relinquishment of any right in immovable property requires compulsory registration, which is not the case in present matter. In natural course, after death of Musaddi Lal, his three legal heirs are found, which are his wife Smt. Tulsa Devi and the two sons Shiv Kumar and Moolchand. Smt. Tulsa Devi had not claimed any share in this property and had specifically stated in evidence that this property was partitioned in equal share between her two sons namely, plaintiff and defendant no.-2. In absence of any claim of Smt. Tulsa Devi in disputed property, the only plaintiff and defendant no.-2 would be legal heirs of this disputed property in equal half shares. In these circumstances, it is immaterial as to whether Musaddi Lal or Smt. Tulsa Devi had relinquished rights in disputed property or not, but it is found that after the death of Musaddi Lal, there are only two claimants of his property, who are his sons Shiv Kumar, the plaintiff and Moolchand the defendant no.-2, who are knowingly and deliberately not accepting any right of their mother Smt. Tulsa Devi. Tulsa Devi is also not claiming any right of this property and has supported the claim of plaintiff-respondent on point of his half share in disputed property and the family partition. Therefore, in these circumstances, in present matter this claim of plaintiff-respondent is found correct that he is owner of half of share of disputed property after the partition being acted upon and is enjoying its possession. In these circumstances, the point of registration of alleged surrender of right through relinquishment and registration of the same become redundant. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is decided as redundant and against the appellants and in favour of plaintiff-respondent. 15. No other point was raised during the arguments. From the above discussion, it is found that trial court had rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff for the relief claimed for cancellation of registered will-deed dated 20.2.1980 executed on behalf of Musaddi Lal in favour of defendant no.-1/appellant no.-1 Smt. Kiran on 20.2.1980 i.e. on the date of his death, which was registered on 21.2.1980. It is found that first appellate court had rightly passed its impugned judgment dated 11.10.1993, by which first appeal was dismissed. 16. On the basis of above discussion, this second appeal lacks any merit and is hereby dismissed.