ORDER 1. This appeal under section 100 of CPC is at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit challenging the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below. Trial Court by judgment dated 29.11.2014 had dismissed Civil Suit No.74-A/2012 filed by appellant and the first appellate Court by judgment dated 13.5.2015 by dismissing the Civil Appeal No.1-A/15 has affirmed the judgment of trial Court. 2. The undisputed facts in the matter are that suit premises admeasuring 10ftx 8inch and 17ft × 8 inch was let out by Bhagirath to Bherulal, husband of appellant. Sushila Bai was only daughter of Bhagirath and respondent No.1 Vijay is son of Sushilabai. The suit house was sold by respondent No.1 to respondents No.2 and 3 vide registered sale deed dated 28.12.2010 and thereafter respondents No.2 and 3 have filed the suit for eviction against the appellant. 3. The appellant had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction pleading that the Will dated 18.8.1991 was executed by Bhagirathji in favour of appellant in respect of suit premises. Bhagirathji had died on 11.2.1992. Since the appellant was illiterate lady therefore no mutation was done by her on the basis of Will and since Bhagirath had told her to keep the Will secret therefore, she had not disclosed the Will to anybody. When the notice of eviction suit filed by respondents No.2 and 3 was received the appellant had come to know about the sale of suit property by respondent No.1 to respondents No.2 and 3 and thereafter the present suit was filed. 4. The suit was opposed by respondents No.1 to 3 by filing joint written- statement and taking the plea that the appellant is setting up of the claim on the basis of fabricated Will. 5. Both the Courts below have found that the Will on which the appellant is relying upon is a fabricated document and no such Will was executed by late Bhagirath in favour of appellant and accordingly the suit of appellant has been dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that Will was not challenged by the respondent No.1 since he had not appeared in the witness box. He further submits that name of respondent No.1 was not mutated in the suit property which shows that he had not received the suit property from Bhagirathji. 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgments. 8. He further submits that name of respondent No.1 was not mutated in the suit property which shows that he had not received the suit property from Bhagirathji. 7. As against this learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgments. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that respondents in the written-statement itself had raised the plea that the Will on the basis of which the appellant was setting up of the claim was a fabricated document. The Courts below have examined the evidence in this regard in detail and have reached to the conclusion that the Will set up by the appellant was fabricated. The Courts below have noted that Bhagirathji had filed the suit being Civil Suit No.90-A/1987 against Bherulalji husband of appellant in respect of suit property which was dismissed on 23.7.1993 after the death of Bhagirathji on 11.2.1992, therefore, there was no question of executing the Will in favour of appellant on 18.81991. It has further been noted that undisputedly Sushilabai was the only legal heir of Bhagirathji and there was no reason to bequeath the suit property in favour of third party when the appellant himself has admitted that relation between Bhagirathji and Sushilabai were good. It has further been noted that in the suit for eviction being Civil Suit No.90-A/1987 the statement of Bhagirathji was recorded on 8.10.1991 and if he had executed the Will in favour of appellant on 18.8.1991 then there was no reason to prosecute the suit for eviction in respect of the property against the appellant subsequent to the Will. The statement of Bhagirathji recorded on 8.10.1991 has taken note wherein he had stated that he was residing in Bhopal for last 5-6 months whereas the Will as relied upon by the appellant is 18.8.1991. It has also been found by the Courts below that for the first time the appellant has come up with the plea after 22 years that the Will was executed in favour of the appellant and prior to that, the Will was not disclosed at any stage nor the mutation was done by the appellant on the basis of said Will. The Courts below have also noted that subsequently in the year 2009-10 even the electric connection was obtained by the appellant by fabricating the consent letter of late Bhagirathji whereas he had already died in 1992. In the said fabricated consent letter the appellant was shown to be his tenant. The name of scribe of the Will has also not been disclosed and it is found that while fabricating the Will the current age of the witness Sevajiram, PW-4 was mentioned whereas the Will was executed 20-22 years back. The witness of the Will PW-6 Rajesh Sangte had even not disclosed that the Will was signed by Bhagirathji in his presence and in the Court he had failed to recognize the photograph of Bhagirathji. The Courts below have also found that the Will was fabricated by appellant when the eviction notice was received by appellant in the year 2012. 9. The findings which are recorded by the two Courts below are pure findings of fact and due and cogent reasons have been assigned by the Courts below in reaching to the conclusion that the Will on which the appellant is relying upon is fabricated. 10. So far as the argument of counsel for appellant that respondent No.1 had not appeared in the witness box is concerned, the respondent No.1 had sold the property to respondents No.2 and 3 and respondents No.2 and 3 who had interested in the matter had duly produced all relevant evidence which has been considered by the Courts below. The argument of counsel for appellant that respondent No.1 had not got his name mutated after death of Bhagirathji is without any substance because the delay on the part of natural heir in recording the name in the revenue record will not effect the title of the natural heir. 11. Counsel for appellant has also placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, reported in AIR 2002 SC 637 , but that was a case where findings relating to Will were recorded on the basis of suspicion and conjectures and the Will was challenged by a rank trespasser but that is not the present case. He has also placed reliance upon judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Ragni Chopra v. Rajesh and others, reported in 2013(4) CCC 461 wherein it has been held that deprivation of due share to natural heirs by itself may not be a suspicious circumstance but it is one of the factor which is to be taken into consideration. In the present case the deprivation of due share to the natural heir has only been taken as one of the factor while considering the issue of Will being fabricated. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the issue which the appellant is raising is concluded by the findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. The appeal does not involve any substantial question of law which is accordingly dismissed in limine.