Appellants companytested the suit denying that the Respondent No.
Being aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.
Appellants preferred a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court which was dismissed being without any merits.
This Will was duly executed and attested but was number registered.
It was held that she had become the owner and therefore entitled to the possession of the same.
Facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are One Prati, son of Kamna, executed a Will on 11.01.1977 in favour of his nephews, appellants herein, bequeathing his entire property in their favour.
1 herein from his another wife Radhi.
1 was the daughter of deceased Prati and a valid Will had been executed in her favour by Prati.
In the Will numberprovision was made by Prati either for his wife Gulabo or for his daughter Sodha Respondent No.
Being aggrieved, Respondent No.
102 of 1983 on 14.07.1983 for injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with her possession over the property of her deceased father claiming herself to be the owner in possession of the said property or in the alternative for possession thereof by virtue of Will executed in her favour dated 08.05.1983.
The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court was companyfirmed.
The suit filed by the Respondent No.
212 of 1995.
1 was the daughter of deceased Prati from his wife Radhi and the Will dated 08.05.1983 was validly executed by him while in sound disposing mind in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the scribe.
First Appellate Court after reappraising the entire evidence set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
It was observed after close scrutiny of both the Wills that the Will dated 11.01.1977 was procured by the appellants under pressure from Prati which was subsequently revoked by him by executing the second Will dated 08.05.1983.
That the alleged Will propounded by the Respondent No.
This Will was duly executed, attested and registered.
1 was decreed by observing that Respondent No.
It was observed that the first appellate Court had rightly companycluded that Respondent No.
Prati died on 10.05.1983.
1 was the daughter of Prati.
1 was prepared in companylusion with the scribe and the attesting witnesses.
After his death Respondent No.
Thereafter, on 08.05.1983 Prati executed another Will wherein he revoked cancelled his earlier Will dated 11.01.1977 and bequeathed his property to his daughter, Respondent No.
1 filed Suit No.
The High Court by the impugned judgment has companyfirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and decreed the suit filed by the Respondent No.
It was further observed that the Will dated 11.01.1977 in favour of appellants was valid and by virtue of the same appellants were entitled to the estate left by Prati.
1 preferred civil appeal.
According to them Prati had died issueless.
BHAN, J. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2001 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Second Appeal No.
