JUDGMENT 1. Defendant number one Phoolmati was plaintiff before the trial Court and she had filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over land measuring 16.28 hectares situated in village Thurua Tehsil and District Singrauli, (M.P.). The property in question is ancestral property of late Suryavansh Pathak. Plaintiff Phoolmati and Shanti Devi are only daughters of Late Suryavansh Pathak. It is averred by the plaintiff that his father has owned share in the property of his father namely Ambika Prasad. After death of Suryavansh Pathak land was entered in the name of wife of Suryavansh Pathak namely Mst. Raniya Devi. She died on 21/1/1998. Tehsildar vide its order dated 29/7/1999 entered the name of defendant no.1 in the revenue records on the basis of Will dated 15/12/1997 of Mst. Raniya Devi. Plaintiff filed a revision against order of mutation, however, she was assured that she will be given share in ancestral property, therefore, she did not prosecuted revision case. Plaintiff got cause of action to file the civil suit when she was stopped from cultivating her share of land by defendant no.1. It was further averred by the plaintiff that Mst. Raniya Devi cannot execute a Will in respect of whole of ancestral property. She can do Will only in respect of her property that is 1/3rd of the ancestral property of the deceased Suryavansh Pathak. Will of Mst. Raniya Bai so for as it affects the share of plaintiff is null and void. 2. As per defendants case, the suit property is self acquired property which was allotted by the seller Singrauli vide allotment order dated 30/3/96 to Mst. Raniya Bai. Plaintiff is not having possession over any part of land in question. Defendant used to live with her mother Mst. Raniya Bai and take care of her and she was doing agriculture on it and is in possession of land in question. 3. Learned trial Court after considering that the deposition of witnesses and evidence available on record held that suit land was ancestral property of Late Suryavansh Pathak. Plaintiff is entitled to half share over the property of Suryavansh Pathak and also entitled to get possession. It was further held that Will dated 15/12/1997 is null and void. Learned trial Court further held that suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. Plaintiff is entitled to half share over the property of Suryavansh Pathak and also entitled to get possession. It was further held that Will dated 15/12/1997 is null and void. Learned trial Court further held that suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation. Cause of action arose on 15/11/2012 and on 20/10/12 and suit was filed on 1/1/13. It was also held by the trial Court that defendant was unable to prove that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the suit. On basis of aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 4. Defendant being aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court dated 20/07/17 filed first appeal before Third Additional District Judge Singrauli. Learned appellate Court vide its judgement and decree dated 17/05/19 confirmed the judgement and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgement of First Appellate Court, defendant has filed the present second appeal before this Court and has proposed following substantial questions of law:-- '(i) Whether the judgement and decree passed by the Court below is perverse and contrary to oral and documentary evidence on record? The judgement and decree passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court is not perverse and is based on the deposition of witnesses and documents on record. Proposed substantial question no.1 does not arise in the second appeal. (ii). Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate that appellant had acquired title by being in possession of property for a period of more than 12 years? Appellants before the trial Court have not made any pleading that they were in settled and peaceful possession of the property in question. It was neither pleaded that plaintif was in the knowledge that respondent is claiming title hostile to that of the plaintiff. In the pleadings made in written statement appellant has claimed title over the property on basis of Will which could not be proved. On basis of same, no substantial question of law no.2 arises in the second appeal. (iii). Whether the Courts below erred in passing the impugned judgement and decree contrary to well settled law and inconsistent with the pleadings of the plaintiff? Appellant failed to point out that what part of judgement and decree is inconsistent with the settled principle of law and pleadings of the plaintiff. (iii). Whether the Courts below erred in passing the impugned judgement and decree contrary to well settled law and inconsistent with the pleadings of the plaintiff? Appellant failed to point out that what part of judgement and decree is inconsistent with the settled principle of law and pleadings of the plaintiff. In view of above, no proposed substantial question of law no.3 arises in appeal. (iv). Whether suit is barred by limitation and defendant had perfected their adverse possession over the suit land? Question of perfection of title by adverse possession has been answered above and as far as the question of limitation is concerned there is concurrent finding of fact that cause of action arose in 2012 and thereafter suit was filed in the year 2013 and same is not barred by law of limitation. (v). Whether the executed registered Will dated 15/12/97 in favour of defendant namely Smt. Shanti Devi has been proved by DW2 in accordance with law and plaintiff has no right to claim on land in question. There is concurrent findings of fact that Will has not been proved by the appellant. Further there is also concurrent findings of fact that suit land was ancestral land of plaintiff, the defendant no.1 and their mother. Since land was not self acquired property of Raniya Bai, therefore, she cannot give away the whole property to defendant no.1 by a Will. Will has also not been proved before the trial Court and further appellate Court also held that the Will has not been proved. In view of the same no proposed substantial question of law arises in this appeal. (vi). The last substantial question of law as proposed by the appellant is beyond comprehension and does not make sense. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion, second appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.