JUDGMENT 1. Respondent No.1 Sitaram Lodhi was plaintiff before the Trial Court. He had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos.244, 345, 366 admeasuring total 6.07 hectare situated in Village Dwarikala, Tahsil Nagod, District Satna. 2. As per the plaintiffs case, Jhalla Lodi had two wives. Jhalla Lodi, who is the forefather of the plaintiff as well as defendants had two sons and three daughters from his first wife, namely, Terasia, Shyam Sunder, Lalla, Sukhiya, and Hirabai. From the second wife, Jhalla Lodi had a son, namely, Suraj Prasad Lodhi @ Ladhera, who died issueless and the property belonged to him is not in dispute between the parties. 3. It is submitted by the plaintiff that being legal heir of Shyam Sunder, he is entitled to get half share over the suit property. After the death of Ladhera, the defendant Nos.1 to 3, namely, Beti @ Shivkumar, Punnu @ Sukhbind, Smt.Vitol Lodhi had produced the Will dated 05/11/2007 vide Exhibit D/1 before the Tahsildar for the purpose of mutation. The Tahsildar dismissed their application for mutation on the ground that the Will is forged. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, an appeal was preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer, which came to be allowed. After passing of the order in appeal, plaintiff Sitaram Lodhi had filed a civil suit for declaration of title and also to declare that he is in possession over the suit land. 4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the said Civil Suit No.6A/2011 by its judgment and decree dated 26/11/2015. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff in Civil Appeal No.61/2015. The 1st Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff holding therein that he is entitled to 1/20th share in the suit property and he is owner of the said share. Being dissatisfied with the judgment & decree passed by the 1st Appellate Court, the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 have preferred second appeal before this Court on following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act have been wrongly applied by the Courts below? As regards the substantial question of law No.1, it is evident that Suraj Prasad Lodhi @ Ladhera died issueless on 05/11/07. As regards the substantial question of law No.1, it is evident that Suraj Prasad Lodhi @ Ladhera died issueless on 05/11/07. Learned Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have not found the Will to be proved as per law.Since Suraj Prasad Lodhi @ Ladhera has died issueless, therefore, Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act has rightly been attracted in the case and the Courts below have not committed any error of law in applying Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 2.Whether the appellants have proved the Will by way of oral and documentary evidence? As regards the substantial question of law No.2, it is evident that there were three witnesses of the Will, namely Ajay Pal Lodhi, Pulla & Dadolal Lodhi. The writer of Will was Vishweshwar Prasad. Appellants/defendants have not examined the attesting witnesses of the Will but has only examined the writer of Will, namely, Vishweshwar Prasad. The writer of Will cannot prove the attestation of Will. The Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have held that the Will has not been proved as per law. There is no error in aforesaid finding of the Courts below. Appellants were unable to prove the Will by any oral or documentary evidence. 3.Whether the Courts below have committed an error of law in granting 1/20th share to the plaintiff in whole of the suit property? As regards the substantial question of law No.3, it is apparent that the 1st Appellate Court has not granted 1/20th share to the plaintiff in the suit property. It has been held by the 1st Appellate Court that the sons and daughters of Jhalla Lodi are second class heirs and each of them is entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property, who would mean that Terasia, Shyam Sunder, Lalla, Sukhiya, Hirabai each of them is entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property. Plaintiff Sitaram is legal heir of Shyam Sunder. As there are four legal heirs of Shyam Sunder, therefore, each of them is entitled to get 1/4th share out of the property of Shyam Sunder. As Shyam Syam Sunder had got 1/5th share, therefore, the legal heirs will get 1/20th share in the suit property of Shyam Sunder. Learned 1st Appellate Court has not given 1/20th share to the plaintiff in whole of the suit property. As Shyam Syam Sunder had got 1/5th share, therefore, the legal heirs will get 1/20th share in the suit property of Shyam Sunder. Learned 1st Appellate Court has not given 1/20th share to the plaintiff in whole of the suit property. Hence, no such substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 5. In view of aforesaid, this second appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed.