JUDGMENT A.S. Supehia, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2001 passed by the City Civil Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad, whereby the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad has allowed the suit filed by the respondent no.1 herein - original plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the present appeal are as under:- The appellant herein is the original defendant no.5 in Civil Suit No.4226 of 1989 instituted by the respondent no.1 herein above original plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Civil Suit before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for declaration and permanent injunction. It has been prayed in the suit that a will dated 30.03.1974 executed by deceased Bai Vali, daughter of Jala Hirabhai, be declared null and void. It has also been prayed in the suit that the sale deed dated 26.06.1989 executed between the original-defendant no.1 and defendant no.5 i.e. the present appellant with respect to the property situated at Ward No.2, Survey No.3226/A, R.N. 179899 (for short the 'suit property') be declared as null and void. Permanent injunction from transferring, selling or in any way assigning the suit property was also prayed. After hearing the parties and taking the evidence, the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad has allowed the suit of the plaintiff by order dated 09.08.2001. Hence, the appellant is constrained to institute the present appeal. 3. Mr. Dipak Dave, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in law while holding that it was for the defendants to prove that the Will was executed was absolutely in proper order. It has been held by the learned Judge that the defendants have failed to prove that the Will was not obtained by fraud or coercion. The learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that it is for the plaintiff to prove at the first instance that the Will is null and void because of fraud and coercion or for any other reasons. Straightway the defendants shall not be called upon to prove the correctness of the Will, which is a registered Will and true and correct in the eyes of law. Onus of proof is upon a person who pleads it. When the plaintiff pleads it that the Will is not proper and it is forged, it shall have to be proved by the plaintiff by some evidence. Onus of proof is upon a person who pleads it. When the plaintiff pleads it that the Will is not proper and it is forged, it shall have to be proved by the plaintiff by some evidence. In the present case, the plaintiff has not proved by any evidence that the Will is doubtful and, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the suit. 3.1 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in 1aw in holding that the defendants have failed to prove that the deceased Bai Vali in sound disposing state of mind executed the Will on 30.03.1974. At the first instance, the issue framed by the learned Judge to that effect is absolutely illegal. First of all, the plaintiff has to prove that the Will was proper and correct. The learned Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Will is a registered Will and it has been executed in presence of the Sub-Registrar, correctness of which cannot be doubted. Therefore, the learned Judge has addressed the issue in question in wrongful manner and from the very beginning, the learned Judge has proceeded on a wrongful track, which has resulted into substantial miscarriage of justice. 3.2 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the suit instituted by the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. The learned Judge has erroneously considered the provisions of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It ought to have been appreciated by the learned Judge that Article 59 of the Limitation Act is not at all applicable. When the Will was made in presence of the father of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff and it has not been challenged at the relevant point of time, after 15 years, it is not open for the plaintiff to say that he, for the first time, came to know about the execution of the Will. When the suit property is registered in the City Survey, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was totally unaware about such transfer. It is unbelievable that for all these 15 years, the plaintiff did nothing. When the suit property is registered in the City Survey, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was totally unaware about such transfer. It is unbelievable that for all these 15 years, the plaintiff did nothing. Even if it is believed the case of the plaintiff that he did nothing for 15 years, then also, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff. When the public document is challenged, it cannot be said that it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff later on. For the purpose of public document, Article 59 of the Limitation Act is having no application. Thus, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. The learned Judge has erred in law in holding that the Will came to be known by the plaintiff in the year 1989. 3.3 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that even as per Article 17 of the Limitation Act, nothing in selection shall enable any suit to be instituted to set aside the transaction, affecting any property which in case of fraud, has been purchased, for valuable consideration by a person, who was not a party to fraud. It is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.5 i.e. the present appellant is a party to the Will which is illegally executed. In absence of the allegation against the appellant, no relief ought to have been granted to the plaintiff. The document is registered in the name of the appellant. In view of this legal aspect, it ought to have been held by the learned Judge that no such defence has been pleaded by the defendant no.5. When the fact remains on record that the property was running in the name of defendant no.1 and transfer of property took place by the registered sale deed, it cannot be said that such defence is absent on record. The finding of the learned Judge that defendant no.5 cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, is absolutely perverse finding in view of the registered sale deed and registered Will. 3.4 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the Will is executed before the Registrar. 3.4 Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the Will is executed before the Registrar. When the public document is challenged, its correctness and validity should not be lightly taken. It is required to be taken note that after the death of Bai Vali, the plaintiff did nothing with the property for all these 20 years. When the public document is challenged, rule of construction should be considered in favour of validity, consistency and reasonableness of a public document. 3.5 Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a purchaser of the property with value and without any notice. If at all the learned Judge proceeds to hold that the Will is invalid, then also, at the most, he could have directed the original defendant no.1 to compensate the plaintiff with regard to his share in the property when the plaintiff himself is guilty of delay and latches and come forward after 15 years of the execution of the Will, he should not have been granted by benefit. 3.6 Learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dilboo vs. Dhanraji Devi, (2000) LawSuit(SC) 1425 and in the case of Becharbhai Zaverbhai Patel and Others. vs. Jashbhai Shivabhai Patel and Others., (2012) LawSuit(Guj) 1413. 4. Per contra, Mr.Ashok Padia, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has placed reliance on Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He has also placed reliance on Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 4.1 Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that two witnesses to the Will executed by deceased Bai Vali do not say that they had signed the same. He has submitted that the sole surviving witness viz. Balchandra (Exh.112) in his deposition has denied his signature on the Will and hence, it cannot be said that the Will was proved. He has submitted that Muljibhai cannot be said as heir and owner of the suit property and he had no right to sell the same to the appellant - original defendant no.5. Thus, he has submitted that, if the Will, which was executed in favour of Muljibhai is not legally proved, then Muljibhai had no authority to sell the property to the appellant. Thus, he has submitted that, if the Will, which was executed in favour of Muljibhai is not legally proved, then Muljibhai had no authority to sell the property to the appellant. He has submitted that the trial court has rightly observed that the Will was not legally proved and hence, the question of limitation would not arise, as it is established that the Will was obtained by fraud. 4.2 Learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the trial court has rightly held issue No.4 in his favour by observing that the suit was not time barred since the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale in June 1989 and immediately within three years he has instituted the suit after having his knowledge that the original defendant - Muljibhai had sold the property in question to the appellant. 5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties at length and perused the material on record. 6. The points which fall for determination before this court is that whether the suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent was time barred and the registered Will in made in favour of the original defendant no.1 was illegal, null and void. 7. The plaintiff has instituted the suit on 19.08.1989 challenging the Will executed on 30.03.1974 on coming to know that the defendant no.1 had sold the said property vide sale deed dated 26.06.1989. The undisputed fact is that the suit property was self-acquired property of Bai Vali. The plaintiff and the deceased defendant no.1 - Muljibhai were cousins. The deceased Muljibhai was the son of the daughter of Bai Vali, whereas the plaintiff was the son of Trikmalal, who was the son of Bai Vali i.e. Bai Vali was her paternal grandmother. It is the specific case of the plaintiff in his plaint that the Will executed by deceased Bai Vali on 30.03.1974 was bogus and false and the same was null and void. Bai Vali passed away on 24.04.1974. The evidence also reveals that HRP suit for the property in question was also instituted by Muljibhai - defendant no.1 against the appellant i.e. original defendant no.5 for recovery of rent and the same was compromised on 12.09.1974. 8. This court has examined the deposition of the witnesses and the documents exhibited before the trial court. The plaintiff was examined at Exh.80. 8. This court has examined the deposition of the witnesses and the documents exhibited before the trial court. The plaintiff was examined at Exh.80. In his deposition, he has stated that he with his family members along with his grandmother - Bai Vali used to stay with her. He has stated that he came to know in the year 1989 through some unknown person that the defendant no.1 had sold the property to the defendant no.5 and on coming to know, he had inquired the same from the Office of City Survey and had obtained the necessary documents from there and after obtaining the necessary documents, he had instituted the civil suit. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he used to enquire about the payment of tax from the defendant no.1 - Muljibhai since 1985 and prior to that, his father used to say that the suit is still pending against the tenant. He has also deposed that the defendant no.5 used to pay the rent to defendant no.1 - Muljibhai and the rent deposited by him in the court was also withdrawn by Muljibhai. He has also stated that he was living along with his father since 1974 with Bai Vali. He has further deposed that his father had not informed him about the Will. He has also stated that the rent of the suit property was Rs. 20/-. He has stated that he was not aware about the Will made by his grandmother. In the cross-examination, he has further deposed that there were two properties bearing City survey nos.3226 and 3227 which were gifted to Bai Vali by Ahmedabad Motors. He has deposed that the property of bearing City Survey no.3227 was sold by Bai Vali to defendant no.1 - Muljibhai Makwana, whereas the other property of Survey no.3226 was given on rent to defendant no.5 - Hiralal Ramjibhai. He has further deposed that the defendant no.1 had instituted HRP suit in 1971 against defendant no.5. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on 30.04.1974, he was with defendant no.1 - Muljibhai, with some other persons whom he did not know. He has stated that he is not aware that after the judgment in the HRP suit, who took the rent. He has deposed that he never enquired from the defendant no.1 about the rent and neither demanded rent from him after death of Bai Vali. He has stated that he is not aware that after the judgment in the HRP suit, who took the rent. He has deposed that he never enquired from the defendant no.1 about the rent and neither demanded rent from him after death of Bai Vali. He has submitted that on enquiring from him, the defendant no.1, he used to state that after the suit was compromised, he would get all the income of the rent. He has further stated that the defendant no.1 had passed away in the year 1992 and he is also not aware that after compromise in the HRP suit, who was taking rent. Thus, from his deposition, it transpires that the plaintiff, his father and defendant no.1 were staying with the grandmother-Bai Vali since 1974. On the day when the Will was registered, i.e. on 30.03.1974, he was with the defendant no.1. He was also aware that regular rent was also collected by the defendant no.1 and thereafter, the same was being deposited in the court during the pendency of HRP suit. He was also aware that the suit was compromised in 1974. The plaintiff was also aware that the rent was also collected by the defendant no.1. The fact remains that said HRP suit was also withdrawn on 12.02.1974 on compromise being entered into between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5. Thus, the deposition of the plaintiff runs contrary to the fact that though the suit was compromised and withdrawn in the year 1974, the defendant no.1- Muljibhai was still collecting the rent. He has specifically stated that since 1985 he was constantly enquiring from the defendant no.1 about the payment of property tax. 9. In the opinion of this court, it is hard to believe that the plaintiff, who was staying with his grandmother and with his father as well as defendant no.1 was unaware of the registered Will and his father had never informed about the same to the plaintiff. The documents at Exh.89 i.e. the entries in the record of city survey reveal that the name of the defendant no.1 - Muljibhai as the owner of the property as on 07.09.1974. It is surprising that the plaintiff came to know about the registered Will in the year 1989 after the sale deed was entered between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5. It is surprising that the plaintiff came to know about the registered Will in the year 1989 after the sale deed was entered between defendant no.1 and defendant no.5. In his deposition, he has stated that he used to enquire about the payment of property tax from 1985, but he did not care to enquire from the city survey records about the mutation of the entry, which was made in favour of the defendant no.1 on the basis of the registered Will made by Bai Vali. The defendant no.1 was paying the property tax since 1974 on the basis of the Will. He was also collecting the rent of the property from defendant no.5. Thus, the say of the plaintiff that he was unaware about the registered Will cannot be believed in light of his own deposition, which is contrary to the facts. It is not in dispute that HRP suit was compromised in the year 1974 and hence, there was no question of further depositing the rent in the court by defendant no.5. Thus, the trial court has fell in error in appreciating the afore-noted facts in its true perspective and holding that the suit was not time barred by giving benefit of Article 59 of the Limitation Act,1963. 10. The Will in question is said to have been executed on 30.04.1974 and was also registered on the same day before the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad. The photocopy of the original Will reveals the signature of the Joint Sub-Registrar and the official seal of the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad. It also displays the thumb mark of Bai Vali. The names of the two attesting witnesses (1) Aljihai Becharbhai; and (2) Bhalbhai Manubhai Solanki also figure on the same. Their signatures figure above the signatures of the Joint Registrar. The recital of the Will reveals that she does not have any trust on her son - Trikamlal and his son Armrutlal. It is also narrated that in the property being survey no.3226 and municipal census no.1789 is given on rent of Hiralal Ramjibhai Rathod (the present appellant). It is also stated that on her death the same may be acquired by the Muljibhai Ishwarlak Makwana(defendant no.1), who is the son of her daughter - Babuben. As reflected from the plaint, the plaintiff has not cast any aspersion on the state of mind of the testator - Bai Vali. It is also stated that on her death the same may be acquired by the Muljibhai Ishwarlak Makwana(defendant no.1), who is the son of her daughter - Babuben. As reflected from the plaint, the plaintiff has not cast any aspersion on the state of mind of the testator - Bai Vali. The only allegation which is made that the testator - Bai Vali could not have made such a Will in favour of defendant no.1 and the same is bogus and false. It also stated in the plaint that he came to know about the ownership of defendant no.1 on the property only on 23.06.1989 when he procured the record from the city survey and then he realized that he had share of 1/4th in the property. 11. As regards the contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent that the Will has not been duly proved as required under the law, it is pertinent to note that the trial judge has held that the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/4 have failed to adduce evidence that Bai Vali was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will as per the requirement of Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Succession Act prescribes that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. It also states that the signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. It also states that the signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act prescribes that a Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witnesses be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Section 67 of the Evidence Act prescribes that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. 12. It is significant to note that the case of the plaintiff as reflected from the plaint and the Affidavit, Exh.7 is that the Will executed by Bai Vali was bogus and the same was null and void. It appears from the record that no written statement is filed by the plaintiff though time was sought by him. The plaintiff has doubted the existence of the Will in question. He has doubted the attestation made by the witnesses by pleading that the same were fabricated. The trial court has framed the issue no.1 casting the burden of proof on the defendant nos.1/1 to 1/4 for proving that the Bai Vali was in a sound state of mind on 30.03.1974. The aforesaid issue is an issue of fact which was required to be proved by leading evidence. No evidence is led before the Trial Court proving that Bai Vali was of unsound mind. In absence of any pleadings by the plaintiff before the Trial Court such issue could not have been framed. The aforesaid issue is an issue of fact which was required to be proved by leading evidence. No evidence is led before the Trial Court proving that Bai Vali was of unsound mind. In absence of any pleadings by the plaintiff before the Trial Court such issue could not have been framed. It was not the case of the plaintiff before the trial court that Bai Vali was not in a fit state of mind and hence the Will executed by her was null and void on that count. The plaintiff has in fact has doubted the very existence of Will by stating that the same was bogus and the signatures of the witnesses were also fabricated. The Trial Court while placing reliance only on one sentence of the deposition of D.W .1 Ushaben has drawn the inference that Bai Vali was not in a sound state of mind. The learned Trial Judge has recorded that since D.W.1 has deposed that "Bai Vali was feeble and was unable to walk without support", and hence it can be said that she was not in a fit state of mind. D.W.1 Ushaben has been examined at Exh.107. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 it is elicited that on the day of execution of Will, Bai Vali was active and conscious, and could recognize persons. The further cross-examination reveals that she has deposed that Bai-Vali was feeble before she expired on 24.04.1974. Thus, the Trial Court has fell in error in ignoring the specific statement made by D.W.1 in her cross-examination that on the day of execution of Will, Bai Vali was active, conscious and was able to recognize persons. Thus, the Trial Court has misjudged and misdirected itself by framing and answering the Issue no.1 in negative against the defendants. 13. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, states that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. The Proviso to Section 67 of the Evidence Act provides that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. 14. In the present case, the sole attesting witness to the will i.e. Balchandra, has been examined at Exh.112 as defence witness no.2. In his deposition, he has stated that in the Will, his signature figures above the signature of the Joint Sub-Registrar at Sr.No.2. He has also stated that he had signed the Will (mark 86/1- original Will). He has also deposed that the Will has been registered, and he has signed the same on 30.04.1974. Thus, the only surviving witness examined on behalf of the defendants, who has specifically stated that he had signed the registered Will on 30.03.1974. No cross-examination has been done by the plaintiff. The trial judge has brushed aside his testimony only on the ground that he has not referred to Bai Vali in his deposition. It is pertinent to note that he had signed the Will as an attesting witness in 1974 and the deposition was recorded on 12.6.2001 after a span of 27 years when he was 78 years on the day of his deposition. The witness has identified his signature on the Will which was in the presence of the Joint Sub-Registrar. In such circumstances, the trial court has fell in error in answering the issue no.4 in favour of the plaintiff by giving benefit of Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is pertinent note that in the past also Bai Vali had sold her property being survey no.3226 to deceased defendant no.1 - Muljibhai. Thus, from the evidence as revealed from the record, it cannot be said that the Will was not properly executed. 15. From the afore-noted analysis, this court is of the opinion that the trial court has erred in deciding the Issue no.1 in negative, Issue Nos.2 and 3 relating to the sale of suit property in "affirmative" and issue no.4 in "negative. It cannot be said that the original plaintiff was unaware about the registered Will executed on 30.03.1974 and he came to know about its existence only in 1989. It cannot be said that the original plaintiff was unaware about the registered Will executed on 30.03.1974 and he came to know about its existence only in 1989. Thus, the appellant - original defendant no.5, who had purchased the suit property from the defendant no.1 cannot be non-suited on the basis of the findings recorded by the trial court that the original plaintiff had no knowledge about the registered Will, which was executed on 30.03.1974. 16. In the opinion of this court, the trial court has failed to appreciate the facts that the defence witness no.2 - Balchandra, who was examined at Exh.112, was an attesting witness to the Will, which was duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad and accordingly, on the basis of the registered Will, the entry was mutated in favour of the deceased defendant no.1 - Muljibhai in 1974, and subsequently also, for 15 years he (Muljibhai) was collecting the rent from the defendant no.5, and executed the sale-deed in the year 1989 in favour of appellant-defendant no.5, and the plaintiff had instituted the suit challenging the registered Will subsequent to the sale deed. 17. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 09.08.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. Record and proceedings be returned to the trial court forthwith.