IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No.484 of 2007. Date of decision: 26.6.2008. Kaula Ram …..Appellant -Versus- Sant Ram and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For respondents: Mr.G.R. Palsra, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J(oral) CMP(M) No.765 of 2007: Heard. For the reasons stated in the application the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. RSA No.484 of 2007: The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land comprised in khata khatauni No.359 min/445 min, bearing khasra No.353/1, measuring 2-14-12 bighas, situated in Mauja Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. According to the plaintiffs the suit land was sanctioned as nautor to their father and that their father had executed a Will dated 31.5.1996 in their favour. They also alleged that the Will dated 1.3.1994 executed in favour of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) was no longer valid in view of the subsequent Will dated 31.5.1996. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs to the extent that the Will dated 1.3.1994 was found to be illegal, null and void and consequently the mutation whereby the property was entered in the name of the defendant was also held to be incorrect. The Court however found that the defendant was in possession of 2 the land in question. An appeal was filed by the defendant. The learned lower Appellate Court has again come to the conclusion that it stands proved on record that the defendant Kaula Ram is in possession of the suit land. He has, therefore, held that though the plaintiffs may not be entitled to any injunction in respect of the suit land, they are entitled to a declaration to the effect that the Will dated 1.3.1994 is no longer valid in view of the Will dated 31.5.1996 which has been found to be legal and valid. This is all that has been held by the Courts below. These are pure finding of fact and in fact before the learned lower Appellate Court learned counsel for the defendant had candidly conceded that since the Will dated 31.5.1996 stands duly proved, the previous Will in favour of the defendant has become redundant. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. It is however clarified that no decree for possession of the suit land has been passed against the defendant. If and when any suit for possession is filed, the defendant shall be free to take all the objections which may be available to him. June 26, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge