weak evidence and the authority will be competent to decide on the appropriate date of birth without reference to the Civil Court decree. As far as the Civil Court decisions are concerned which are the subject matter of challenge in the second appeals, I would find no error in its finding that the genuineness or otherwise of the Will was itself irrelevant, as far as the plaintiffs in the suit were concerned, though it may have a bearing on the claim of Yog Raj, who asserted an independent right through the Will in his capacity as a major son. If the adjudication were to yield to a finding that he was also a minor son at the relevant time, then bequest would make no difference, the same way it would make no difference for the plaintiffs in the Civil Court. If the findings were to be entered that Yog Raj was a major, then it would be essential to consider whether the Will was genuine and whether Yog Raj obtained any particular share in the property in terms of bequest. I have already observed that the findings of the trial Court have been prevaricating in nature with no positive finding rejecting the Will as not genuine. It has only made an inference from the fact that the mutation had not been effected on the basis of the Will immediately after Hazura Singh's death, but the mutation was effected only subsequently by means of a Civil Court decree that the Will could not be true. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, have contended in second appeals that the Courts have not considered the evidence of a witness who was examined to speak about the valid execution and attestation of the
