JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the plaintiff/appellant against the impugned rendition of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff/appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby the latter Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. His standing aggrieved, he has therefrom preferred the instant appeal before this Court for seeking from this Court an order reversing the findings recorded therein. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants NO.1 to 12 on the allegations that Shri Puran son of Shri Ram Saran was owner in possession of land described in khasra Nos. 112/35, 74, 75, and 76 measuring 10-12 bighas situated in revenue estate Halwari, Khasra No. 499/1, measuring 2/3 bighas situated in revenue estate Ladda and Khasra Nos. 27, 146, 457/165, 209, 213, 249, 322, 388, 399 and 389 measuring 19-10 bighas situated in revenue estate, Chhaproh, Pargana Sarium, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Shri Sita Ram (father of defendants No.6 and 7) are sons of Shri Puran. Defendants No. 3, 4 are sons of the plaintiff. It is stated that the parties were Brahmins by caste and were governed by Hindu Mitakshra Law in the matter of alienation and succession. The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Shri Sita Ram along with their father Shri Puran constituted a joint Hindu family. The suit land was ancestral though recorded under the ownership and possession of Shri Puran in the books of the Collector. The suit was stated to be joint Hindu coparcenary property. As such, Shri Puran could not alienate the same through Will. The plaintiff had stated that he had 1/5th share in the suit land. Shri Puran had died in 1971. Much after the death of Shri Puran, the plaintiff had been informed of succession to the estate of his father. In the books of the Collector, defendant No.1 had been recorded owner in possession of the suit land measuring 19-10 bighas of revenue estate, Chhaproh. Shri Puran had died in 1971. Much after the death of Shri Puran, the plaintiff had been informed of succession to the estate of his father. In the books of the Collector, defendant No.1 had been recorded owner in possession of the suit land measuring 19-10 bighas of revenue estate, Chhaproh. Defendant No.2 had been recorded owner in possession of the rest of the suit land of revenue estates Ladda and Halwari. Mutation of the suit land had been attested in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on the strength of Will dated 22.6.1965 purported to have been executed by Shri Puran in favour of defendant No.1 and his mother defendant No.2. It is stated that Shri Puran could not have executed the Will of the suit land in favour of his wife and defendant No.1. The plaintiff wanted to institute suit claiming his share in the suit land after the death of his father. Defendant No.1 as also defendant No.2 had requested the plaintiff not to institute the suit since the litigation would bring bad name to the family. Defendant No.1 had got suit land measuring 19.10 bighas of revenue estate Chhaproh of the share of the plaintiff and Sit Ram mutated in their favour as per relinquishment deed. Defendant No.2 had assured the plaintiff that after her death the suit land of revenue estate, Ladda and Halwari shall go to the natural male heirs. As such, the plaintiff did not institute the suit claiming his share in the joint Hindu coparcenary property in 1971. The plaintiff had stated that defendant No.2 on 5.9.1989 had gifted the suit land of revenue estates Ladda and Halwari in favour of defendants No.5 to 12. Defendant No.2 could not gift the joint Hindu coparcenary property of revenue estates Ladda and Halwari in favour of her daughters or their husbands. The plaintiff had, therefore, instituted suit for declaration to the effect that the defendants No. 1,3,4, 6 and 7 and himself constituted a joint Hindu family. The suit land was ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property with Shri Puran. Shri Puran could not execute the Will of the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and his mother. Also the defendant NO.2 could not execute gift of the suit land situated in revenue estates Ladda and Halwari in favour of defendants No.5 to 12. The suit land was ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property with Shri Puran. Shri Puran could not execute the Will of the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and his mother. Also the defendant NO.2 could not execute gift of the suit land situated in revenue estates Ladda and Halwari in favour of defendants No.5 to 12. A permanent injunction had been sought restraining defendants No.1 to 12 from not allowing the plaintiff to enjoy his share of the joint property. Alternatively, the plaintiff had sought relief of possession of his share of the suit land. 3. Defendants No.1,2 and 5 to 12 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua maintainability, limitation, estoppel and misjoinder. It had also been averred that the plaintiff had not paid correct court fees and as such, the court could not proceed with the trial of the suit. On merits, the defendants admitted the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendants with Shri Puran. It had been stated that Shri Puran had been absolute owner of the suit land. The suit land was not ancestral property of Shri Puran qua the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants No.1,3,4,6 and 7 did not constitute a joint Hindu family. The parties were separate in mess and worship. Shri Puran was competent to execute the Will of the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. The Will dated 22.6.1965 executed by Shri Puran was stated valid and binding on the plaintiff. Mutation of the suit land had been rightly sanctioned in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on the strength of the last and final Will dated 22.6.1965 of Shri Puran. The plaintiff had been notified of the Will executed by his father in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in due course. Defendants No.1, 2 and 5 to 12 had denied having agreed to grant the share, if any, of the plaintiff in the suit land situated in revenue estate, Chhaproh. Defendant No.2 had no where stated that after her death, the suit land of revenue estates Ladd and Halwari shall go to male natural heirs. Defendant No.2 was absolute owner in possession of the suit land situated in revenue estates Ladda and Halwari. Defendant No.2 had no where stated that after her death, the suit land of revenue estates Ladd and Halwari shall go to male natural heirs. Defendant No.2 was absolute owner in possession of the suit land situated in revenue estates Ladda and Halwari. Defendants No. 5 to 12 had been looking after and maintaining defendant No.2 Defendant No.2 had been competent to gift her property in favour of defendants NO.5 to 12. The plaintiff was bound by the registered gift deed dated 5.2.1989. The plaintiff was not entitled to 1/5th share of the suit land. The plaintiff was not entitled to any relief much less to the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the suit land is joint Hindu Family coparcenary and ancestral property in the hands of plaintiff and defendants Nos.1,3,4, 6 and 7?OPP 2. Whether the Will dated 22.06.1965 with regard to suit land executed by Shri Puran in favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 is illegal and void? OPP. 3. Whether the gift deed dated 5.2.1989 executed by Smt. Ajudhiya Devi in favour of defendants is wrong and void? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff along with defendants No.1, 2, father of defendants Nos.6 and 7 and defendants No.9 and 10 are having 1/5th share in suit land after successor of Shri Puran? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is not within limitation? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his conduct and deeds? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable on the grounds of non-payment of court fee? OPD 10. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 11. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the latter Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant herein/plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the appellant/plaintiff before the learned first Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Now the plaintiff/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgement and decree by the learned first Appellate Court . In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the appellant/plaintiff before the learned first Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal. 6. Now the plaintiff/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgement and decree by the learned first Appellate Court . When the appeal came up for admission on 16.03.2005, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted herebefore by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Will of ancestral property can be validly executed without legal necessity by divesting any beneficiary of such ancestral property, having acquired right over the property by birth? 2. Whether the gift deed Ex.P-19 executed by Smt. Ajudiya Devi is without consideration and he same is illegal in as much as she is not the owner of the suit property to the extent of the share of the plaintiff; if so its effect? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 7. Late Shri Puran, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties at contest, owned land located in mauza Chaproh besides in mauzas Halwari and Ladda. During his life time, he executed a testamentary disposition qua his land located in the aforesaid mohals/mauza vis-a-vis the contesting defendants No.1 and 2. Defendant Ajudhiya Devi, his surviving widow in pursuance to hers thereupon receiving the aforesaid estates of her pre-deceased husband executed a gift deed comprised in Ex.P-19. Both the learned courts below concurrently recorded qua the suit land borne in mauza Chhaproh partaking the trait of ancestral coparcenary property whereas the suit land borne in mauza Halwari and mauza Laddda not partaking the trait of ancestral coparcenary property rather the suit land located in the latter Mohals/mauzas comprising the self acquired property of deceased Puran. Both the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below record a finding qua the apposite Will standing stained with a stain of illegality qua embodiments occurring therein qua land located in village Chhaproh standing bequeathed therein vis-a-vis defendants No.1 and 2. However, gift deed comprised in Ex.P19 stands concurrently concluded to be valid. Both the concurrently recorded renditions of both the learned Courts below record a finding qua the apposite Will standing stained with a stain of illegality qua embodiments occurring therein qua land located in village Chhaproh standing bequeathed therein vis-a-vis defendants No.1 and 2. However, gift deed comprised in Ex.P19 stands concurrently concluded to be valid. The stain of illegality omnibusly imbuing the aforesaid documents qua lands borne in all mauza/mohals aforesaid stands canvassed by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant to spur from one Puran, the common ancestor of the litigating parties hereat making acquisition of land (s) located in mauja Halwari and in mauja Ladda from the income earned by him from ancestral coparcenary property located at Mohal Chhaproh rendering them hence to also acquire the characteristic trait of theirs being construable to be ancestral coparcenary property whereupon he qua them also stood interdicted to execute a valid testamentary disposition vis-a-vis defendants No.1 and 2. Significantly, he reiterates qua with the land held by Puran located in Village Chhaproh standing concluded by the concurrently recorded renditions of both the Courts below to partake the trait of ancestral property/coparcenary property also when evidently there occur enunciations qua the aforesaid Puran from the income derived by him from land located in village Chhaproh, his acquiring lands located in village Ladda and Harwali renders the estates occurring in latter mohals to acquire an alike trait. 8. Both the learned Courts below dispelled the vigour of the aforesaid espousal of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. However, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contends qua the appreciation meted by the learned Courts below of the relevant evidence suffering from a taint qua theirs mis-appraising besides omitting to appreciate its probative worth. The aforesaid submission made herebefore by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant herein would yield formidability only on forthright evidence standing adduced in display of the plaintiff's espousal qua deceased Puran from the earnings reared by him from lands located in Village Chhaproh, his acquiring estates/properties located in village Halwari and in village Ladda. The best evidence qua the aforesaid facet stood comprised in the plaintiff adducing the relevant revenue records pertaining to the time contemporaneous to the year 1955 whereat Puran acquired properties/estates located in village Halwari and in village Ladda, holding a candid visible display therein qua the quality of land located at village Chhaproh besides its income generating capacity. The best evidence qua the aforesaid facet stood comprised in the plaintiff adducing the relevant revenue records pertaining to the time contemporaneous to the year 1955 whereat Puran acquired properties/estates located in village Halwari and in village Ladda, holding a candid visible display therein qua the quality of land located at village Chhaproh besides its income generating capacity. However, the aforesaid evidence remained unadduced by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. For omission of the plaintiff to adduce the aforesaid best evidence for clinching his espousal contrarily benumbs his contention qua one Puran acquiring, from the income reared by him from lands located in Village Chhaproh properties/estates located in village Ladda and Halwari besides thereupon the estates/properties of Puran located in the latter mohals/mauzas concomitantly do not partake or acquire any trait of ancestral coparcenary property. Concomitantly also the renditions concurrently recorded by both the learned Courts below qua hence with the aforesaid Puran standing bestowed with absolute title thereto, his thereupon holding the relevant capacity to execute vis-a-vis his properties/estates located in village Ladda and Halwari, a valid testamentary disposition vis-a-vis defendants No.1 and 2 do not suffer from any taint of any illegality. Also when Ajudhiya Devi has under a gift deed comprised in Ex.P-19 alienated her interest/title qua the lands located in villages Ladda and Halwari, hence, obviously does not render it to stand vitiated. 9. Even otherwise, the plaintiff in discharging the relevant onus of proving qua one Puran acquiring from his income reared from ancestral coparcenary property located in village Chhaproh, estates/properties located in villages Halwari and Ladda, had merely depended upon his bald oral testimony. His bald testimony carries no legal vigour for want of his omitting to adduce the aforesaid relevant best evidence. His bald testimony carries no legal vigour for want of his omitting to adduce the aforesaid relevant best evidence. Also the testification of the plaintiff qua his since his employment in the year 1957 in Bharat Petroleum at New Delhi remitting funds to his father Puran through money orders, hence, his contributing to the income of the Hindu Undivided Family of which he was a constituent, wherefrom, he espouses qua the relevant acquisitions stood consummated by his deceased father Puran also does not hold any legal worth for want of his (a) not placing on record except one receipt of Rs.50/- pertaining to the year 1959, the relevant apposite documentary evidence for succoring his espousal; (b) with the relevant acquisition occurring in the year 1955 renders the effect, if any, of any remissions made by the plaintiff to his deceased father Puran in the year 1957 to not hold no vigour qua thereupon the latter in the year 1955 whereon the relevant acquisitions occurred hence utilizing any portion of remissions, if any, made by PW-1 to deceased Puran for thereupon facilitating the latter to purportedly therefrom acquire estates/properties located in village Halwari and Ladda and (c) reliable evidence standing adduced in portrayal of Puran, the common ancestor of the litigating parties hereat serving in the Indian Railway, wherefrom, it can be concluded qua his drawing salary from his relevant employment in the Indian Railway wherefrom it is to be concluded qua his purchasing therefrom the estates/properties located in villages Ladda and Halwari, whereupon, hence, the properties located thereat partake the characteristic trait qua their being hence construable to be his self acquired properties. 10. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the defendants/respondents and against the plaintiff/appellant herein. 11. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.