It depends on the merits of case and order passed by court. Only after detail study opinion can be given 

Chances of winning are zero .latest will supersedes earlier will of 1994 

Only the last Will shall prevail. The chances of A's success are bleak.

If Party A's civil court case challenging Party B's 2001 Will was dismissed after 7 years, the chances of winning in sessions court depend mostly on new evidence or proof of fraud, coercion, or lack of testamentary capacity regarding Party B's Will—mere appeal with the same facts usually has low success unless a legal error or strong new evidence is shown.

A Will whether registered or unregistered is considered to be valid.

In the event that a new, valid will is created, it automatically revokes any previous wills, regardless of whether the old one was registered.

The registration of the previous will does not give it a higher legal standing than a later, validly executed will. 

The fundamental legal principle is that only the "last will and testament" is valid and enforceable.

This means that if multiple wills exist, only the most recent one will be executed. 

Therefore your proposal to file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the case of A may not be maintainable and not advisable. 

if the Will is related to the same person then last Will shall be valid and considered by the court for all the purposes.

as the case of A had already dismissed by trial court, hence there is less chances to win 

- As per law , the registration of a Will is not mandatory , if it is written in the presence of two attesting witnesses. 

- Further, a registered Will is safe to challenge the further transfer of the property without giving information 

- However, only the last written Will is valid 

- Hence there is least chances of successes in the session Court in the absence of not having information of your case and the order. 

Short Answer

The chances of Party A winning in the Sessions Court are extremely low, bordering on impossible, based on the information provided. The Sessions Court is not the correct forum for this type of appeal, and even if it were, the dismissal by the civil court is a significant setback that is difficult to overturn.

Detailed Legal Analysis

1. The Incorrect Forum: Sessions Court vs. District Court

This is the most critical point. You have likely confused the appellate forums.

• Sessions Court: This is a criminal court. It handles appeals against judgments from Magistrate Courts in criminal cases (e.g., theft, assault, cheating). A challenge to a Will is a civil dispute.

• District Court: The correct forum for an appeal against the judgment of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) is the District Court, presided over by a District Judge (a civil court). This is the First Appellate Court for civil matters.

Conclusion: Party A must file the appeal in the District Court, not the Sessions Court. A lawyer filing in the Sessions Court will have the appeal rejected outright on grounds of jurisdiction.

2. Understanding the "Dismissal" by the Civil Court

After a 7-year trial, the civil court's dismissal means it has rejected Party A's challenge to Party B's 2001 Will. The court has effectively held that:

• Party B's 2001 Will is valid and legally sound.

• The grounds on which Party A challenged it (e.g., lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, improper execution) were not proven.

• Since the later Will (2001) is valid, it revolves the earlier Will (1994). The principle is that the most recent valid Will is the one that governs the inheritance.

3. Chances of Success in the First Appellate Court (District Court)

To win an appeal, Party A must convince the District Court that the trial court made a fundamental error. The appellate court does not re-hear the entire case from scratch. It primarily reviews:

• Was there an error in law? Did the trial judge misinterpret the Indian Succession Act or the Evidence Act?

• Was the trial court's finding "perverse"? Was the conclusion so against the weight of the evidence that no reasonable person could have reached it?

The appellate court will be very reluctant to interfere with the trial court's findings of fact, especially after a 7-year trial where the judge had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses.

Grounds on which Party A might have a chance (if they exist):

• Critical Evidence Ignored: The trial judge completely ignored a piece of documentary evidence (e.g., a medical record proving the testator was of unsound mind in 2001) that was conclusive in nature.

• Misapplication of Law: The trial judge applied the wrong legal principle (e.g., placed the burden of proof on Party A instead of Party B where the law requires it).

• Appreciation of Evidence: The trial judge's interpretation of witness testimony or documents was manifestly erroneous and illogical.

Simply being dissatisfied with the result is not a ground for appeal.

Strategic Advice for Party A

1. Consult a Specialized Lawyer Immediately: Party A must consult with a lawyer who specializes in civil appeals and succession law. The first step is to ensure the appeal is filed in the correct court (District Court) within the stipulated limitation period (usually 90 days from the date of the trial court's judgment).

2. Obtain the Certified Copy of the Judgment: Party A's lawyer must thoroughly analyze the trial court's judgment to identify specific, appealable errors. The entire appeal will be built on pinpointing these errors.

3. Re-evaluate the Evidence: The lawyer will need to see if there is any strong, undeniable evidence that was overlooked or misinterpreted. The mere existence of an earlier Will (1994) is not enough to invalidate a later one (2001).

4. Consider a Settlement: After a 7-year legal battle and a loss at the first stage, Party A should seriously consider the time, cost, and emotional drain of a further appeal that has a low probability of success. Exploring a settlement with Party B might be a more pragmatic course of action.

Conclusion

The dismissal by the civil court is a major defeat for Party A. The path forward is an uphill battle.

• Probability of Success: Very Low. The system gives great deference to the findings of a trial court that has examined the evidence over a long period.

• Correct Forum: District Court (Civil), not Sessions Court (Criminal).

• Key to Success: The only way to win is to demonstrate a clear, specific, and material error in the trial court's judgment, not just a disagreement with its conclusion.

Party A must have a frank discussion with a competent lawyer about the specific legal and factual errors in the trial court's order that can form the basis of a strong appeal. Without such identifiable errors, an appeal is likely to be another costly and time-consuming failure.

You have explained that Party A had a registered Will executed in 1994, and Party B had a later registered Will from 2001. Party A challenged the 2001 Will in a civil court, but the suit has now been dismissed after nearly seven years. You are considering an appeal and want to know the likelihood of success.

The first point to note is that a later Will does not automatically become valid just because it is newer. The real legal test is whether the Will is proved properly in court — meaning the attesting witnesses must have confirmed its execution, the mental condition and intention of the testator must have been established, and there should be no signs of fraud, coercion, or forgery.

Since the trial court has already dismissed Party A’s case, it means the judge found the 2001 Will to be valid, or at least found that Party A failed to prove that it was invalid. Appeals do not involve re-hearing the whole case or re-examining each witness. The appellate court checks whether the lower court made any legal or evidentiary errors. If the judgment is detailed, reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence, it is usually difficult to get it reversed.

Another important correction: the appeal does not go to the Sessions Court. Civil appeals from the trial court are filed before the District Judge or High Court under Section 96 CPC. The time limit is 90 days from the judgment, so the appeal should be filed promptly along with a request for stay if needed.

The actual chances of success will depend on why the case was dismissed. If Party A only made allegations without proof, the appeal is weak. If there is evidence of fraud, forgery, or procedural irregularity that the court ignored, the appeal is stronger. If the dismissal was based on a technical defect instead of the merits, the chances improve.

Before proceeding, it is essential to obtain and review the full judgment and evidence record. Only then can strong appeal grounds be drafted, pointing out where the trial court went wrong in law or in appreciation of facts.

If you would like, I can help outline the appropriate appeal strategy, draft the possible grounds of appeal, and advise on whether a stay petition should be filed to prevent further transfer or mutation of the property.

Let’s carefully unpack this situation step by step because the answer depends entirely on what grounds the earlier Will (Party A’s) was claimed to be valid and on what grounds the later Will (Party B’s) was challenged.

Here’s a structured and practical explanation for you:

1. Basic legal presumption in Will cases

When there are two registered Wills, the later Will ordinarily prevails, because under succession law, a Will is by nature revocable. So, the Will of 2001 (Party B’s Will) automatically supersedes the Will of 1994 (Party A’s Will), unless Party A can successfully prove that:

• The 2001 Will was forged, coerced, made under undue influence, or

• The testator (the person making the Will) was not of sound mind at the time of executing the 2001 Will, or

• The Will was not properly attested or executed as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

So, the burden of proof lies heavily on Party A to discredit the 2001 Will, since it is the later and registered one.

2. What the civil court’s dismissal means

If the civil court dismissed Party A’s case after 7 years, it means:

• The court found the 2001 Will to be genuine, valid, and duly executed, or

• Party A failed to prove fraud, coercion, or lack of testamentary capacity, or

• The evidence produced by Party A was insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of a registered Will.

Since civil courts decide such matters after detailed evidence (handwriting experts, attesting witnesses, registration records, etc.), a dismissal after full trial generally indicates that the court was satisfied with the validity of the 2001 Will.

3. Chances of success in appeal before the Sessions (or District) Court

If Party A files an appeal against the civil court judgment, the appellate court will not hold a fresh trial. It will mainly examine whether the lower court:

• Properly appreciated the evidence,

• Correctly applied the law, and

• Did not commit any procedural or evidentiary error.

This means Party A must show that the trial court’s judgment was perverse, arbitrary, or ignored vital evidence. Unless there is a clear legal or factual mistake apparent from the record, appellate courts usually uphold the lower court’s findings, especially in Will disputes where evidence is already deeply scrutinized.

So, statistically and practically, the chances of success for Party A in appeal are low (around 10–20%) unless:

• The trial court overlooked a key attesting witness’s testimony, or

• Ignored evidence suggesting fraud or forgery in the 2001 Will, or

• Misinterpreted the law on execution or attestation.

4. Strategic next steps for Party A

• Obtain and study the certified copy of the judgment carefully. Identify specific errors in reasoning or findings — for example, if the court ignored documentary proof or wrongly applied burden of proof.

• File an appeal within limitation (usually 90 days from the date of judgment).

• Ensure the memorandum of appeal clearly highlights errors of law or procedure — not merely re-argue facts already decided.

• If the appellate court also dismisses, the next step would be a Second Appeal to the High Court, but that is confined only to substantial questions of law.

5. In summary

• Later registered Will (2001) naturally prevails over the earlier one (1994).

• Civil court’s dismissal after 7 years likely means strong evidence supported the 2001 Will.

• Appeal chances are limited unless the judgment has a demonstrable error.

• A well-drafted appeal focusing on errors of law or misreading of evidence offers the only real chance of success.

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 sets out that a will must be attested by at least two witnesses, each of whom has either seen the testator sign or received acknowledgment of the signature. There is no requirement in this provision that the witnesses should know, read, or understand the contents of the will.

A will not read by the testator or not read out by testator in front of witness can be a point of contention, potentially impacting its validity,

2) if there are doubts about the will's validity, a court can examine the circumstances surrounding its execution.

Point 4 – “He never read the Will.”
That, by itself, is not fatal. A witness to a Will is not required to know or read its contents; his legal duty is only to attest the signature of the testator, i.e., to confirm that he saw the testator sign and that he signed in the testator’s presence. Therefore, a statement that the attesting witness did not read the Will carries no adverse implication so long as he clearly affirms that the testator signed it in his presence while of sound mind.

Point 5 – “The Will was not read by the testator or was not read out to the testator in front of him.”
This point is more delicate. The witness is not saying the testator did not know the contents, only that in his presence the Will was not read or read out. Unless there is independent evidence suggesting the testator was illiterate, visually impaired, or incapable of understanding the document, the law presumes that a person who signs a document does so after understanding it. The mere fact that the attesting witness did not see it being read or explained does not invalidate the Will.

However, if Party A is challenging the Will, this statement can be used to create suspicion about due execution and testamentary capacity—especially if other circumstances already appear doubtful (for example, if the Will makes an unnatural bequest, or was prepared in secrecy, or the beneficiary was present during its making). Courts in such cases look for “suspicious circumstances.” Lack of proof that the Will was read or explained to the testator can strengthen that argument, but only when combined with other doubts.

In summary:
• Non-reading of the Will by the witness is immaterial.
• Absence of reading or explanation of the Will to the testator, by itself, does not vitiate the Will unless there is evidence that the testator did not understand what he signed.
• It can add to suspicion if the Will appears otherwise unnatural or if the testator was aged, infirm, or illiterate.

So, in this case, points 4 and 5 are not, by themselves, enough to invalidate the Will, but they can be supporting factors if Party A can show additional suspicious circumstances surrounding execution.

As per law the witnesses need not know the contents of the documents/ instruments they are signing as attesting witness.

Therefore this is not a defective Will nor unreliable witness.

The Will, if satisfies the other issues, can be considered valid.

- Since, the Will is already attested by the two witnesses and they affirmed the same in the Court in their cross examination then the Will is valid. 

- In the absence of non disclosing the content of the Will , not invalidate the Will. 

If the witness confirms signing, attests the testator's sound mind and signature, but states the will was not read by or to the testator in his presence, it weakens (but does not automatically invalidate) the will’s execution.

Effect of Points 4 & 5

• Point 4 and 5: Not reading the will or not reading it out in front of the witness may raise doubts about whether the testator truly understood the contents. However, if the testator was of sound mind and there are no proven elements of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, Indian courts usually uphold a will if it is duly executed and attested as per law.

• The will is generally considered valid unless there is clear evidence the testator did not understand or approve its contents.

4. and 5. If the Testator was a literate, there was no need for the Will to be read out to him/her. The Witness should not know the contents of the Will, for the sake of privacy and confidentiality.

The chances of Party A succeeding in appeal are quite limited unless strong evidence of suspicious circumstances or lack of testamentary intent can be shown. The witness testimony you’ve shared largely supports the validity of Party B’s 2001 Will, despite minor weaknesses about whether the Will was read aloud.