JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is second civil appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.1980 passed by the Civil Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1979 arising out in Regular Suit No. 210 of 1977 decided by the Munsif North, Sultanpur by the judgment and order dated 9.2.1979.
2. I have heard Shri U. S. Sahai, holding brief of Shri H. S. Sahai for the appellants and Shri Mohd. Arif Khan for the respondents.
3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for demolition, possession and injunction with respect to the land in dispute claiming ownership rights through Dukhi and Rameshwar. It is alleged that Dukhi and Rameshwar were real brothers and house situate towards north of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs are the daughter and son of the Rameshwar who pre-deceased Dukhi. According to the plaintiffs, Dukhi executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs before the date of vesting with respect to the land in dispute and on the basis of Will they are owners of the land in dispute. It is alleged that the defendants have forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs and the defendants have also raised constructions over the land in dispute after dispossessing the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit has been filed for demolition, possession and injunction.
4. The case of the defendant-appellants is that Dukhi and Rameshwar were the only licensee of the house situated towards north of the land in dispute and in fact the house in dispute was constructed by the father of the defendants and Dukhi and Rameshwar were employees of the defendants. The plaintiffs never lived in the house in dispute nor the plaintiffs are the heirs in any manner nor they have been in possession over the house or the land in dispute. It was also pleaded in the written statement that out of the two plaintiffs the plaint has been signed only by one plaintiff Ram Sunder and Ram Sunder was not of sound mind and therefore, the suit filed by him without the next friend was also not maintainable. The defendants also challenged the validity and genuineness of the Will on the basis of which the plaintiffs claimed their title.
5. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents by holding that the plaintiffs have a different house in the village according to their own admission and the defendants are the owners of the house situate towards north of the land in dispute and also of the land in dispute and the plaintiffs have never been in possession over the land in dispute and have no title. It was also held that the Will was not found genuine.
6. The defendants went in appeal and the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs' suit.
7. The second appeal was admitted on 27.10.1980 but no substantial question of law was framed. On 28.11.2003 after hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, this Court framed the following substantial question of law :
"Whether the Will deed dated 15.2.1952 executed by Dukhi on which the plaintiffs placed reliance was not proved according to law and the judgment passed by the first appellate court is vitiated on that ground?"
8. The other grounds taken in the memo of appeal were given up by the learned counsel for the appellants. So the arguments were heard on the aforesaid substantial question of law for deciding this appeal. The plaintiffs claimed their title on the basis of the Will executed by Dukhi. It is Ext, Ka-5 on the record of the lower court. It was executed on 19.2.1952. It is a registered Will. One of the attesting witnesses of this Will is Brij Mohan who has been examined by the plaintiffs as P.W. 4. He has given the statement that the Will was written in his presence and Dukhi had given the thumb impression in his presence and he had signed as attesting witness in the presence of Dukhi, the executant of the Will. He has proved his signature and thumb impression of Dukhi, the executant of the Will. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is as follows ;
"68. Proof of executing of document required by law to be attested.--If a document is required by law to be. attested it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence :
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
9. Besides the aforesaid provisions under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption about the signature and genuineness of the Will being a document if it is thirty years' old document. The State Legislature in U. P. has amended Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and substituted the word twenty years in place of thirty years. Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with its U. P. amendment is as follows :
"90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.--Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the hardwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Explanation.--Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be, but no custody is improper if It is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.
This Explanation applies also to Section 81.
Uttar Pradesh (Amendment) :
In its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in Section 90 :
(i) Renumber the existing section as Sub-section (1) thereof and
(ii) For the words thirty-years' substitute the word 'twenty-years' and
(iii) Insert the following as new Sub-section (2) :
(2) Where any such document as is referred to in Sub-section (1) was registered in accordance with the law relating to registration of documents and a duly certified copy thereof is produced, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is in that person's handwriting and in the case of a document executed or attested that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom purports to have been executed or attested U. P. Act 24 of 1954, Section 2 and Schedule (30.11.1954)."
10. The period of twenty years is to be reckoned from the date on which it is tendered in evidence and its genuineness or otherwise becomes subject of proof. The suit was filed on 25.10.1977. The witnesses to prove this document were examined in January, 1979. The Will was executed on 19.2.1952. It's certified copy was filed in the Court on 30.9.1978 and the original Will was filed on 29.1.1979 when a period of twenty years had already expired. So it is a document more than twenty years' old. It is coming from the custody of the plaintiffs who are the beneficiaries in this Will. So the custody of the plaintiffs will be deemed to be" a proper custody. Therefore, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of the document is genuine and that it was duly executed by Dukhi and attested by the attesting witnesses who are named therein.
11. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition the Will dated 15.2.1952 shall be deemed to have been proved according to law and it cannot be said that the judgment passed by the first appellate court is vitiated on this count.
12. Since no other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants or the respondents, I find that this second appeal is to be dismissed in view of the aforesaid findings.
13. In view of the above, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.