JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against judgment and decree dated 28.2.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba (HP) in Civil Appeal no. 22/06, affirming judgment and decree dated 30.6.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, HP, in Civil Suit No. 177/02, whereby suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction having been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) came to be dismissed. 2. Necessary facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land comprised in Khata/ Khatauni No. 25/36, Khasra Nos. Kitta 20 measuring 08-13-00 Bigha situate in Mauza Moura, Pargana Jund, Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba and land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 8/8, Khasra Nos. Kita 17, measuring 11-16-00 Bigha situate in Mauza Chatraid, Up Tehsil Bhalei, Pargana Jund, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘suit land’) was owned and possessed by Santa, who died intestate without executing any Will in respect of suit land. In the aforesaid suit, plaintiff averred that deceased Santa was father of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 and he was owner-in-possession of suit land till he was alive. It is claimed that deceased Santa never executed any Will because at that time he was aged 60 years and was seriously ill and bed-ridden, who could not hear and understand the things. Plaintiff further averred that had Shri Santa executed Will, Mutation No. 218 dated 28.5.2002 in respect of land comprised in Mauza Chatraid, Pargana Jund, would not have been attested in favour of the parties in equal shares as per Hindu Succession Act. Plaintiff further claimed that he alongwith defendants is in peaceful possession of the land as owner. Plaintiff claimed before the learned trial Court that defendant No.1 on the basis of a false and forged Will, dated 8.4.1993 (Exhibit DW-3/A) is trying to dispossess him from the suit property with a view to grab valuable portion of the suit property without any right or authority. Since defendants failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, he was compelled to file the suit at hand. 3. Defendants filed a joint written statement controverting therein the averments contained in the plaint. Since defendants failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff, he was compelled to file the suit at hand. 3. Defendants filed a joint written statement controverting therein the averments contained in the plaint. Defendants though admitted that the suit land originally belonged to Santa, who breathed his last on 10.3.2002, but specifically denied that Santa died intestate. Defendants further stated before the learned trial Court that aforesaid Will was executed by deceased owner in the names of plaintiff and defendant No.1. He further stated that neither Santa was suffering from any ailment nor he was bed-ridden, rather, he was hale and hearty at the time of execution of Will (Exhibit DW-3/A). Defendants further denied that suit property is under occupation of the plaintiff as claimed. By way of replication, plaintiff, while reiterating the averments contained in the plaint, refuted the averments contained in the written statement. 4. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record, learned trial Court, framed issues No.1 to 4 on 26.3.2004 and additional issue No. 4(A) on 12.6.2006, as under: “(1) Whether no valid Will so far has been executed by Santa as alleged? OPP (2) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD 4(A) Whether deceased Santa had executed a valid will in favour of defendant as alleged? OPD (5) Relief?” 5. On the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced on record by respective parties, learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.6.2006, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and held him not entitled to decree or relief as prayed for in the suit filed by him. Being aggrieved, plaintiff preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2007, as a consequence of which, judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings, praying therein for decreeing the suit after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 6. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this Court, in the instant proceedings, praying therein for decreeing the suit after setting aside judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 6. Vide order dated 4.5.2007, appeal at hand came to be admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the ld. Court below has correctly appreciated the provisions of law pertaining to pleadings? 2. Whether the Ld. Court below has not correctly appreciated the provisions of Section 35-B, of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus arrived at a wrong conclusion in law? 3. Whether the Ld. Court below could have appreciated the document Exhibit DW-3/A, despite a specific condition/order passed in application under Order 8 Rule 1-A, CPC?” 7. Taking note of the text of the substantial questions of law referred to herein above, this Court intends to take all the substantial questions of law for determination together in order to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 8. Having carefully perused the pleadings vis-à-vis evidence available on record, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention made by Ms. Ruma Kaushik, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that there is total misreading and mis-appreciation of the evidence led on record by respective parties, rather, this Court is of the view that both the learned courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and there is no mis-appreciation of evidence. Inviting attention of this Court to Will Ext. DW-3/A, allegedly executed by late Santa in favour of the defendants, learned counsel made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with her contention that Will set up by the defendants is false and fictitious and shrouded by suspicious circumstances, as such, learned Courts below have fallen into grave error while placing undue reliance upon the same. Ms. Kaushik further contended that it is a matter of record that Will was not produced before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Salooni at the time of attestation of mutation, as such, it could be safely concluded by the learned Courts below that plaintiff and defendants being legal heirs of deceased Santa were rightly given land in question in equal shares. Ms. Ms. Kaushik further stated that no reliance, if any, could be placed upon Will, exhibit DW-3/A because it was never produced by the defendants, rather, learned trial Court while allowing application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC filed on behalf of the defendants, had granted opportunity to the defendants to produce aforesaid Will subject to payment of costs of Rs.300/- but since defendants failed to pay/deposit the costs, learned trial Court had no occasion to look into copy of Will exhibit DW-3/A placed on record by the defendants. Lastly, Ms. Kaushik contended that both the learned Courts below have miserably failed to take note of the fact that the marginal witnesses, Achhru and Duni Chand, are related to defendant No.1 and as such, their statements could not have been taken into consideration by the learned Courts below, while ascertaining correctness and genuineness of the Will set up by defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants, while inviting the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi vs. Rajat Vidyarthi, (2009)3 SCC 287 , (2000)3 SCC 708 and Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 , forcibly contended that present appeal is not maintainable, in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by learned Courts below and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 11. With a view to explore answer to the substantial questions of law as well as to ascertain correctness and genuineness of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, this Court carefully examined the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the respective parties and after having perused the same, finds no force in the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Exhibits P1 and P2, copies of Jamabandis for the years 2000-01 and 1996-97, clearly suggest that deceased Santa was owner-in-possession of suit land. Similarly, in the remarks column of Exhibit P2, note appended in rend ink clearly suggests that on the death of Santa, Mutation No. 218 relating to land at Village Chatraid was sanctioned on 22.5.2002 in favour of both the parties. It is also undisputed that disputed property was initially owned and possessed by their father, Santa, who expired on 10.3.2002. Similarly, in the remarks column of Exhibit P2, note appended in rend ink clearly suggests that on the death of Santa, Mutation No. 218 relating to land at Village Chatraid was sanctioned on 22.5.2002 in favour of both the parties. It is also undisputed that disputed property was initially owned and possessed by their father, Santa, who expired on 10.3.2002. Case of the plaintiff is that Santa did not execute Will and Will dated 8.4.1993 set up by defendants is false and fabricated document and same is result of fraud and misrepresentation but unfortunately no evidence has been led on record by plaintiff to substantiate his aforesaid claim. 12. On the other hand, defendants have set up a case that late Santa had executed valid Will on 8.4.1993. With a view to prove valid execution of Will, defendants have examined marginal witnesses. Needless to say for proving the aforesaid Will, propounder of Will is/was required to prove that Will is a valid and legal document. Plaintiff namely Chimanu, in his statement recorded before the court below has admitted that the suit land was owned and possessed by late Santa, who stated that he did not make any Will. He further stated that suit property devolved upon him and defendant in accordance with Hindu Succession Act and Santa was not competent to execute Will as he, at the time of execution of Will, was 60 years old and seriously ill and bed-ridden. He further deposed before the court below that he was unable to see, hear and understand things. He further stated before the court below that last rites of Santa were performed by him being elder son. Marginal witnesses are close relatives of defendant No.1. PW- 1 further averred that he was in occupation of the suit land alongwith the defendants and defendant No.1 was trying to oust him from the disputed land and to raise the construction over its best and valuable portion on the basis of forged and fabricated Will. Interestingly, this witness in his cross-examination categorically admitted that Smt. Chimbo (defendant No.2) was married and living in the house of her in-laws. PW-1 further admitted that at the time of marriage of defendant No.2, dowry etc. was given to her by his father. Interestingly, this witness in his cross-examination categorically admitted that Smt. Chimbo (defendant No.2) was married and living in the house of her in-laws. PW-1 further admitted that at the time of marriage of defendant No.2, dowry etc. was given to her by his father. This witness categorically denied that deceased Santa was residing with defendant No.1 and he served him during his life time and performed his last rites. Though this witness claimed that at the time of execution of Will, Santa was not in his senses and was bed-ridden but in this regard, no documentary evidence, if any, was led by plaintiff. 13. PW-2 Chanalu Ram supported the case of the plaintiff, but in his cross-examination, stated that Santa had fallen ill four years prior to his death. 14. DW-2 Chamaru Ram testified that disputed land belonged to their father, who had executed a Will on 8.4.1993 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1. Land at Village Chatraid was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff, whereas, land in Village Moura was given to him (defendant No.1). DW-2 further stated that defendant No. 2 was married and putting up in her matrimonial home. He also deposed that he served his father and performed his last rites. It has also come in his examination that Santa was mentally and physically alert till his death and he executed Will in a sound state of mind. This witness also stated that after demise of Santa, land at Village Moura is under his exclusive possession, whereas, land of village Chatraid is in possession of the plaintiff. Careful perusal of cross-examination conducted on this witness nowhere suggests that plaintiff was able to elicit anything material from him detrimental to the case as set up by the defendants. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that report qua Will was lodged by him with the Halka Patwari. Though this witness admitted that Will was not executed in his presence by deceased Santa but stated that same was executed in presence of Achhru and Duni Chand, who are his maternal uncle (Mama) and real brother, respectively. He categorically denied that deceased Santa was blind or ill during fifteen years prior to his death. Though this witness admitted that Will was not executed in his presence by deceased Santa but stated that same was executed in presence of Achhru and Duni Chand, who are his maternal uncle (Mama) and real brother, respectively. He categorically denied that deceased Santa was blind or ill during fifteen years prior to his death. While admitting the fact that while land in Village Moura is cultivable this witness in his cross-examination stated that he was not aware as to whether mutation of land at Village Chatraid was attested as he was busy performing last rites of his father. 15. Careful perusal of Exhibit DW-3/A, original registered Will dated 8.4.1993, suggests that deceased Santa had executed Will in favour of his sons, plaintiff and defendant No.1, in the presence of marginal witnesses S/Shri Achhru and Duni Chand. 16. DW-2 Chain Lal has stated that he is working as a Document Writer in Chamba for the last thirteen years and he knew Deena Nath (deceased). This witness stated that he had learnt work from late Deena Nath and was conversant with his handwriting and signatures. This witness stated that the original Will had been written by Deena Nath and signed by him. This witness in his cross-examination admitted that Will was not written in his presence. 17. Similarly, DW-3 Achhru, one of the marginal witnesses to the Will also supported the case as set up by defendants. He deposed that Will was got scribed by Santa from the Document Writer, who after scribing the same, read over and explained contents thereof to its executant. This witness further stated that Santa thumb marked the Will in his presence and in the presence of Shri Duni Chand, who admitted the contents of Will to be correct. He further stated that the entries qua Will were made by Document Writer in his register. Most importantly, this witness stated that Santa, Duni Chand and Advocate went to the Tehsil Office, where deceased Santa admitted Will to be correct before Sub Registrar and thumb marked it. This witness stated that at the time of execution of Will, Santa was in a fit state of mind and health. Though in his cross-examination this witness testified that he was maternal uncle of defendant No.1, but categorically denied that deceased Santa was blind at the time of execution of Will and was putting up with the plaintiff. This witness stated that at the time of execution of Will, Santa was in a fit state of mind and health. Though in his cross-examination this witness testified that he was maternal uncle of defendant No.1, but categorically denied that deceased Santa was blind at the time of execution of Will and was putting up with the plaintiff. This witness also denied that mental state of Santa was not good for the last fifteen years prior to his death and no Will was executed by him. 18. Having carefully examined the evidence be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that Will Exhibit DW-3/A, is a legal and valid document executed by deceased Santa in a sound state of mind. From the depositions made by marginal witnesses, as has been taken note above, it is abundantly clear that deceased Santa had come to Chamba, of his own alongwith witnesses and executed Will of his own free will without any external pressure. Moreover, reasons assigned in Exhibit DW-3/A for disinheriting defendant No.2 clearly belie the case set up by plaintiff. 19. Careful perusal of Exhibit DW-3/A clearly suggests that plaintiff was not ignored/disinherited by his father, rather land at Village Chatraid was given to him by deceased Santa, whereas land in Village Moura was given to defendant No.1. No doubt, while allowing application under Order 8 Rule 1-A, CPC having been filed by defendants, opportunity was granted to the defendants to place on record copy of Will subject to payment of costs but otherwise, perusal of record clearly suggests that certified copy of Will in question was placed on record by plaintiff himself at the time of institution of suit and as such, there appears to be no force in the arguments of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff that since, defendants failed to pay costs to the tune of Rs.300/-, Will being relied upon by defendants could not be read in evidence by the learned trial Court 20. In the case at hand, plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that Will exhibit DW-3/A is a forged document procured by defendants by way of fraud and misrepresentation, whereas, defendants by leading cogent and convincing evidence, have been able to discharge their onus being propounder of the Will that the same was executed by Santa in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in a sound state of mind, without there being any external pressure or coercion. 21. Interestingly, no reliable evidence, if any, with regard to serious illness of deceased Santa as projected in the plaint has been led on record and as such, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, which otherwise appear to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties. 22. Since specific objection with regard to maintainability of present appeal, in view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below, has been taken by the defendants, this Court also deems it necessary to deal with the same. Though learned counsel representing the defendants has placed reliance upon the judgments, as have been taken note above, this Court deems it proper to take into consideration latest judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma’s case supra, wherein it has been held as under:- “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 23. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 23. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment suggests that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. This Court, after having taken note of observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment supra, sees no reason to differ with the argument having been made by learned counsel representing the defendants that in normal circumstance, concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below should not be interfered with by the High Courts, rather, High Courts, while exercising powers under Section 100 CPC, are restrained from re-appreciating the evidence available on record. 24. In this regard reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) through LRs and Others, (2013)15 SCC 161 , wherein the Court held: “35. The learned counsel for the defendants relied on the judgment of this Court in Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal, (2006)5 SCC 545 , wherein the principles relating to Section 100 of the CPC were summarized in para 24, which is extracted below : (SCC pp.555-56) “24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant for this case may be summarised thus: (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. (ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to “decision based on no evidence”, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding.” We have to place reliance on the afore-mentioned case to hold that the High Court has framed substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of the CPC, and there is no error in the judgment of the High Court in this regard and therefore, there is no need for this Court to interfere with the same.” (pp.174-175) 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh versus Gurpreet Singh, Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2009, decided on 25.7.2017, has held as under: “(14) In our considered opinion, the findings recorded by the three courts on facts, which are based on appreciation of evidence undertaken by the three Courts, are essentially in the nature of concurrent findings of fact and, therefore, such findings are binding on this Court. Indeed, such findings were equally binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal. (15) It is more so when these findings were neither found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings nor these findings were found to be against the evidence, nor against the pleadings and lastly, nor against any provision of law.” 26. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by both the learned Courts below can not be interfered with unless same are found to be perverse to the extent that no judicial person could ever record such findings. In the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail, there is no perversity as such in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below, rather same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence as such, same deserve to be upheld. 27. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 28. Consequently, in view of discussion above, there is no merit in the appeal and same is dismissed. Judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are upheld. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated.