JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Through, the concurrently recorded verdicts, both the learned courts below, hence non suited, the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are aggrieved therefrom, hence, through, the instant appeal constituted before this Court, strive, to, beget hence reversal(s) of the verdicts, as, stand concurrently recorded against them, by, both the learned courts below. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, of, plaintiffs are that their predecessor Shri Krishan Chand alias Krishan Lal was the owner of 1/3rd share to the extent of 642-86 square meters in the land and house comprised in Khewat No.144, Khatauni Nos. 271 to 276, total measuring 1928.57 square meters, situated in Mohal Dhabon, Nahan city. That out of his share, he alienated an area of 76.26 square meters and at the time of his death, he was entitled to 566.60 square meters of land and houses. Shri Krishan Lal died on 1.7.1996 and at the time of his death he had three sons, one Sh. Sumer Chand (husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and 3), Dev Raj and Bhushan as well as three daughters Smt. Sunita, Kiran and Promila besides his wife Smt. Parwati. It has been averred that the defendants and Shri Sumer Chand, i.e. the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiffs, inherited the estate of Sh. Krishan Lal in equal shares, and on 1.7.1996 at the time of death of Sh. Krishan Lal, Sumer Chand was entitled to an area of 81.0 square meters, out of the inheritance of late Sh. Krishan Lal. That Shri Sumer Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs died on 5.6.1998 and the plaintiffs are in possession of the houses and lands along with the defendants. That on 15.5.2000, the plaintiffs came to know that instead of their lawful share of 81 square meters, which they have inherited being the estate of Sumer Chand, they are being shown as owners in possession of 63 square meters land only. That the plaintiffs obtained the copy of jamabandi on 17.5.2000 and came to know from the revenue records that the defendant shave manipulated a wrong revenue entry on the basis of some Will executed by Shri Krishan Lal in favour of the defendants, despite, the fact that Shri Krishan Lal never executed any Will in their favour nor he was in such a state of mind to execute the Will. It has been averred that the plaintiff also came to know that the defendant No.7 has purchased a portion out of the suit land, which is illegal and void and does not confer any right upon her. That the plaintiffs called upon the defendants many times to agree to the partition of the holdings and to allow the plaintiffs to possess their rights on 81 square meters of land, however, the defendants have failed to exceed to their requests, and, as such, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for declaration that they are owners to the extent of 1/7 share along with houses, measuring 81 square meters of the suit land and the revenue entries wherein the share of the plaintiffs have been reduced and shown to be 63 square meters are illegal, null and void and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiffs and any alienation made by the defendants affecting the rights of the plaintiffs to to their entitlement of 81 square meters of the land and the houses is also null and void and illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and they are also entitled to get their rights of partition and also prayed for a decree of partition and possession of the suit land. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed separate written statements. Defendants No.1 to 6 in their written statements, denied that Sh. Sumer Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, is entitled to 81 square meters of land. It has been stated that Shri Krishan Lal executed a Will on 9.11.19990 in a sound and disposing mind and also in the presence of the witnesses and got the same registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Nahan, on the same day and on the basis of the Will, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs Shri Sumer Chand was given 1 1/2 share of plain land i.e. 63 square meters, out of the estate held by him. That the remaining land and property was bequeathed in favour of defendants No.1,2 and 4 in equal shares. That Sh. Sumer Chand was living separate with his family and was not helping his father nor was contributing anything to his father on the other hand, Shri Krishan Lal was happy with the services rendered by the defendants, who were doing everything for him. That Sh. Sumer Chand was living separate with his family and was not helping his father nor was contributing anything to his father on the other hand, Shri Krishan Lal was happy with the services rendered by the defendants, who were doing everything for him. That Shri Sumer Chand was aware of the said Will and he on 22.11.1990/28.1.1991 sworn an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Nhan, wherein, he admitted the authenticity of the Will and accepted the fact that he was given 1 1/2 bsiwas of land through that Will, and, Shri Sumer Chand also undertook to vacate the room of Khasra No.1046 within six months by means of that affidavit. That mutation on the basis of said Will was attested on 30.9.1996 after the death of Krishan Lal to the notice and knowledge of the deceased Sumer Chand and till his death he never questioned the Will and now after his death, the plaintiffs have filed this suit out of greed and as such they are estopped on account of act and conduct of Sh. Sumer Chand from filing the suit. 4. Defendant No.7 in her written statement, also denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. She further averred that she is a bonafide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration as she purchased the property in good faith after making bonafide inquiry. 5. The plaintiffs filed replication(s) to the written statement(s) of the defendant(s), wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement(s), and, re-affirmed, and, re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court, struck, the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners to the extent of 1/7th share along with the houses are measuring 81 square meters, as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration, as prayed? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is undervalued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. 5-A. Whether Nishi Kumari is bonafide purchaser of the suit property, if so its effect? OPD. 5-B. Whether the sale deed is liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPD. OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is undervalued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. 5-A. Whether Nishi Kumari is bonafide purchaser of the suit property, if so its effect? OPD. 5-B. Whether the sale deed is liable to be set aside, as alleged? OPD. 5-C. Whether late Shri Krishan Lal executed a valid and last Will dated 9.11.1990 of his property, if so its effect? OPD. 6. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, of, the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the plaintiffs/appellants herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed, the, appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the plaintiffs/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, on 13th January, 2006, this Court, admitted the appeal, instituted by the plaintiffs/appellant(s) against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether Will Ex. DA of Krishan Lal has been executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and whether Will is not shrouded by suspicious circumstances? 2. Whether Courts below have erred in not appreciating that the plaintiffs are entitled to separate their share by way of partition of the suit property and courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition? Substantial question of Law No.1 : 9. Ex. DA, is a registered testamentary disposition, hence, executed by the deceased testator, one Krishan Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, at contests, and, therethrough, he constituted, the, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, one Sumer Chand, as well, as the defendants rather as his legatees. However, the legacy bestowed, through, the testamentary disposition, as, executed by deceased testator Krishan Chand, and, as embodied, in Ex.DA, is, in a lessor quantum, vis-a-vis, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, than, qua the defendants, (a) and, thereupon, the suit for declaration, for setting aside, the, apposite registered testamentary disposition, embodied in Ex. DA, hence stood instituted, by, the plaintiffs. Conspicously, Ex. DA, hence stood instituted, by, the plaintiffs. Conspicously, Ex. DA, upon, fulfilling all the statutorily contemplated condition(s), as, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. -Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 12 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) The 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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." (b) and, provisions whereof cast, an, explicit injunction, upon, the propounder of the Will concerned, to adduce cogent evidence, qua the deceased testator, embossing his/her thumb impression or his/ her signatures, in the presence, of, the marginal witnesses thereto, (c) and, the marginal witness thereto, thereafter being also statutorily enjoined, to, render testification(s), vis-a-vis, theirs also in the presence, of, the deceased testator, hence, making their/his thumb impressions or their/his appending their/his signatures thereon. Consequently, for discharging, the onus, vis-a-vis, the afore statutory parameters, the propounders of Ex. DA, had, through DW-4, Surat Ram, one of the marginal witness to Ex. DA, hence strived to prove, its, apt statutory due, and, valid execution. DW-4, in his testification, has made voicings, vis-a-vis, at the time, of, execution of Ex. DA, by the deceased testator Krishan Chand, his, being in a sound disposing state of mind, (d) and, his being also compos mentis. DA, hence strived to prove, its, apt statutory due, and, valid execution. DW-4, in his testification, has made voicings, vis-a-vis, at the time, of, execution of Ex. DA, by the deceased testator Krishan Chand, his, being in a sound disposing state of mind, (d) and, his being also compos mentis. He has also echoed therein, vis-a-vis, the contents of Ex. DA, being readover and explained, to the deceased testator, and, upon his comprehending them, his scribing his signatures thereon, and, thereafter, the marginal witnesses' thereto, also in the presence of the deceased testator hence making their respective marks thereon. The afore testification, rendered, by DW-4 Surat Ram, is also corroborated, to the fullest, by DW-5, Fiyaz Ali, another marginal witnesses, to, Ex. DA. With both the marginal witnesses' to Ex. DA, rather in their respective testifications rendering echoings, strictly, within, the statutory contemplation(s) as, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Successon Act, (e) thereupon, the requisite statutory parameters, do, ex-facie beget satiation, thereupon, an unfliching conclusion, can be drawn by this Court qua the propounders of Ex. DA, hence, adducing cogent proof, vis-a-vis, the valid, and, due execution, of, Ex. DA. Fortification, to, the afore inference is gathered, from, the uncontested statutory endorsements, hence, occurring on Ex. DA, and, when the signatured, and aptly sealed statutory endorsement, echoes qua after the contents of Ex. DA, being readover, and, explained to the deceased testator, by the Sub Registrar concerned, and, thereafter also echo qua, upon, the deceased testator hence admitting the veracity, of, the recitals borne, in, Ex. DA, his appending, his signatures thereon, (f) thereupon, with no evidence being adduced, qua the deceased, being impersonated nor evidence being adduced, vis-a-vis, his signatures being fictitious, (g) rather when the afore rendered testifications, of, the marginal witnesses, and, also the uncontested endorsement, occurring upon Ex. DA, do with the fullest corroborative vigour, hence constitute unflinchingly inter se corroborative proof, vis-a-vis, the, requisite statutory parameters, embodied in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (h) thereupon no conclusion, than, the propounders hence proving the due, and, valid execution of Ex. DA, being the apt ensuable sequel, rather being drawable. 10. Be that as it may, with Ex. DB, exhibit whereof comprises, an affidavit sworn, by Sumer Chand, and, its execution occurring in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the authoring, of, Ex. DA, being the apt ensuable sequel, rather being drawable. 10. Be that as it may, with Ex. DB, exhibit whereof comprises, an affidavit sworn, by Sumer Chand, and, its execution occurring in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the authoring, of, Ex. DA, hence by the deceased testator, and, validity thereof, also being proven by DW-3, and, by DW-6, (I) thereupon, on anvil thereof, an inevitable conclusion flows, qua the relevant unflinching discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, the apposite issue hence coming, to be adduced, rather by the propounders, of, Ex. DA. However, since as afore stated, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff(s) through, Ex. DA hence stood bestowed a legacy, lessor in proportion, vis-a-vis, the legacy bestowed therethrough, upon, the defendants, (ii) thereupon, the learned counsel, for the plaintiffs has contended, that, with lack of disservice, is enunciated, in Ex. DA, to constitute the apt reason rather, for the afore inter se disparity(ies), vis-a-vis, hence, the legacy(ies) bestowed, under, Ex. DA, respectively, upon, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, and, the defendants, rather being false, (iii) given prior to, the execution of Ex. DA, through, GPA borne in Ex. Px, the deceased testator, rather bestowing, upon, Sumer Chand, certain empowerments, vis-a-vis, the land depicted therein. However, the afore argument, is not worthy, of acceptance, given the execution of Ex. DA rather occurring prior in time, vis-a-vis, the execution of Ex. Px. Consequently, substantial question, of law, No.1, is, answered in favour of the defendants/respondents, and, against the plaintiffs/appellants. Substantial question of law No.2. 11. The learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved plaintiff, has, contended, qua, there being a complete failure, on the part, of both the learned courts below, to after, accepting the validity of Ex. DA, to hence render a preliminary decree, vis-a-vis, the built up portion occurring, upon, the suit land/suit property. The afore submission has immense vigour, yet, the afore omission, is, curable by meteing rather a direction, upon the learned trial Court concerned, to, in consonance, with the shares enumerated in Ex. DA, his, thereafter, rendering a preliminary decree of partition, qua the built up portion, (I) and, thereafter, his upon, receiving the, report of the Local Commissioner concerned, making an order of dismemberment(s) thereof, by metes and bounds, obviously amongst the co-owners therein. DA, his, thereafter, rendering a preliminary decree of partition, qua the built up portion, (I) and, thereafter, his upon, receiving the, report of the Local Commissioner concerned, making an order of dismemberment(s) thereof, by metes and bounds, obviously amongst the co-owners therein. However, vis-a-vis, the open land, borne in the suit khasra numbers, the remedy available, for partition thereof, is, through, the contesting litigants hence making an application, before the revenue officers concerned. Consequently, substantial question of No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants, and, against the defendants/respondents. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is partly allowed, and, the judgments, and, decrees, impugned before this Court, is modified in the afore manner. The learned trial Court, is, directed, to in consonance with the shares enunciated in Ex. DA, to, render a preliminary decree of partition, qua the built up portion, and, thereafter, his upon, receiving the report of the Local Commissioner concerned, making an order of dismemberments thereof, by metes and bounds, obviously amongst the co-owners therein. However, vis-a-vis, the open land, borne in the suit khasra numbers, the remedy available for partition thereof, is, through the contesting litigants making an application before the revenue officers concerned. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are directed to appearing before the learned trial Court on 20th August, 2019. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.