JUDGMENT Amitav Banerji, J.- This is a second appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff-respondent is his younger brother. The parties have been litigating over an item of property which admittedly in a partition went to another brother of theirs, Dharam Nath Singh. The plaintiff-respondent claimed half share in the above property. The defendant appellant contended that the deceased Dharam Nath Singh had executed a Will, Ex. A-3, on the 23rd September, 1969 and bequeathed all his properties including the property in dispute in his favour. The execution of any will by the deceased was denied by the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant examined one of the attesting witnesses, the scribe and himself to prove the due execution of the Will. The plaintiff also examined himself and relied on an application, Ex. 1, made to the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi, by the deceased brother, wherein he indicated that there was enmity between him and the defendant. 2. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the execution of the will was duly proved and the suspicious circumstances had been explained away. Consequently, the plea of the defendant regarding the execution of the Will in respect of the suit property was believed and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. 3. On appeal the Court held that the due execution of the Will was not proved and the suspicious circumstances had not been explained away. Consequently, the lower appellate court set aside the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the defendant has come up in second appeal in this Court. 4. Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the lower appellate court had misread the evidence to hold that the due execution of the Will was not proved. His second contention was that the lower appellate court had relied on an inadmissible piece of evidence, Ex. 1, to hold that there was enmity between the deceased Dharam Nath Singh and the defendant. It was next contended that the lower appellate court was in error in holding that there were suspicious circumstances which had not been explained away. His further contention was that the lower appellate court has erroneously not referred to the evidence of Girja, DW 2, the scribe, whose evidence had been relied upon by the trial court. 5. It was next contended that the lower appellate court was in error in holding that there were suspicious circumstances which had not been explained away. His further contention was that the lower appellate court has erroneously not referred to the evidence of Girja, DW 2, the scribe, whose evidence had been relied upon by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the execution of the will as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act had not been proved. Secondly, there were suspicious circumstances in the case which had not been explained away. The Will was registered twenty-five days after the death of Dharam Nath Singh. The defendant was the propounder of the Will and he was the sole beneficiary under the Will. Thirdly, the enmity between the deceased and the defendant was admitted by the attesting witness Baldeo. Although, the plaintiff had taken a specific plea that the deceased had not executed any Will at all, the defendant had taken no steps to prove the signature of the deceased on the Will. 6. The lower appellate court has held that the due execution of the Will Ex. A-3, was not proved. The principal reason for this conclusion was based on the assertion that the attesting witness, Baldeo, DW-1, had not stated that the attesting witnesses had signed in presence of the deceased testator. There are other reasons why the execution of the will has not been accepted by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court has also recorded that the evidence of DW-1 Baldeo, the attesting witness was not reliable. The third reason was that there were suspicious circumstances which had not been explained away by the propounder of the Will. 7. The first point therefore to be considered is whether the due execution of the will, Ex. A-3, was proved. It is settled law that where a document is required to be attested and the Will is one of them, its execution can be proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses. This is laid down in Section 68 of the Evidence Act. A-3, was proved. It is settled law that where a document is required to be attested and the Will is one of them, its execution can be proved by examining one of the attesting witnesses. This is laid down in Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that the attesting witness must testify that he had seen the testator signing or affixing thumb-impression and had also been the other attesting witnesses signing the Will in presence and upon the direction of the testator each of the witnesses had signed the Will in presence of the testator. In the present case, the defendant no. 1 has deposed that the Will had been scribed and then read out to the testator who had himself also read it and thereafter had put his signature on the Will, Ex. A-3 in presence of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. Thereafter, they had all signed the Will. The exact words used in his deposition are as follows :- "Jab Dharam Nath ney dastakhat Kardiya tab Raghunath ney, mainey aur Munshi Ji ney dastkhat Kiye." This sentence does not contain the statement that the signatures of the attesting witnesses were done in presence of the testator. To this extent the observation of the lower appellate court is correct. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was mireading of evidence. Thus, to this extent there is no misreading of the evidence. But the evidence cannot be assessed in a pedantic manner. It has to be considered after taking into consideration the reference to the context. The earlier two sentences deal with the making of the signatures on the Will by Dharam Nath Singh and the two attesting witnesses and the scribe. Section 63 (c) of the Succession Act requires the attesting witnesses "to sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator". In the present case, the statement of the attesting witness Baldeo does not show that Dharam Nath Singh had directed them to sign the will. The witness in the cross-examination had also stated that neither Dharam Nath nor any one had told him about the writing of the Wasiyatnama. This evidence at least point out that the execution of the Will, Ex. A-3, was shrouded in suspicion. The witness in the cross-examination had also stated that neither Dharam Nath nor any one had told him about the writing of the Wasiyatnama. This evidence at least point out that the execution of the Will, Ex. A-3, was shrouded in suspicion. The lower appellate court on an appraisal of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the evidence of this attesting witness Baldeo could not be relied upon. It has given adequate reasons. It is not open to this Court to appraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion. The finding of the lower appellate court in this regard has to be accepted. If the evidence of the attesting witness is not relied upon, the execution of the Will is also not proved. The evidence of the scribe in regard to due execution of the Will is not to be considered so long as one of the attesting witnesses is alive and is subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Since one attesting witness was examined in this case, there was no question of looking into the other evidence for the purpose of proving the due execution of the Will. The scribe may at the most give evidence regarding the instructions given to him for the drawing up of the Will, his scribing the Will and its approval by the testator. Unless the scribe had signed the Will as attesting witnesses, his evidence regarding the execution of the will is not to be looked into. Consequently, the evidence of DW-2 Girja regarding the execution of the Will was not relevant, and if the lower appellate court has made no reference to his evidence, it has not fallen into an error of law. 8. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding that the execution of the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same had not been removed. 8. The lower appellate court has recorded a finding that the execution of the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same had not been removed. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others ( AIR 1959 SC 443 ) has clearly laid down the law on the point in the following words :- "It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties." The Supreme Court has also indicated in the above case generally what would be considered to be suspicious circumstances, but laid special emphasis about cautious approach in regard to the propounders of the Wills who are beneficiaries under the Will. It was laid down : "Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the Wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the Wills which confer on them substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence". This rule has been followed and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan, ( AIR 1962 SC 567 ), Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerji, ( AIR 1964 SC 529 ) ; Beni Chand v. Smt Kamla Kunwar and others, ( AIR 1977 SC 63 ) & Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amri Kaur, ( AIR 1977 SC 74 ). 9. In the present case, the defendant Vishwanath is the propounder of the Will. He took a prominent part in the execution of the Will. He was the sole beneficiary under the Will. According to the evidence of the attesting witness, he was also present at the time of the execution of the will. 9. In the present case, the defendant Vishwanath is the propounder of the Will. He took a prominent part in the execution of the Will. He was the sole beneficiary under the Will. According to the evidence of the attesting witness, he was also present at the time of the execution of the will. Apart from all this it is also noticed that although the testator remained alive for more than a month after the execution of the Will, the Will was not got registered. It is true that the Will does not require registration, but in the present case the Will was got registered posthumously, twenty-five days after the death of the testator. There is no adequate reason given for non-registration of the Will during the life time of the testator. As matter of fact, the Will saw the light of the day only on the 21st November, 1969 when it was presented to the Sub-Registrar for registration. It is, therefore, obvious that a party who takes a prominent part in getting the will executed and who is the sole beneficiary under the Will and keeps it unregistered in his possession a very heavy burden lies on him to remove the suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will. The lower appellate court has recorded that the suspicious circumstances have not been explained away or removed by the defendant. This finding coupled with the finding that the evidence of the attesting witness is not reliable is sufficient to conclude the matter against the defendant. 10. A contention was raised that the lower appellate court has relied on Ex. 1, the certified copy of an application purported to have been written by the deceased to the Nagar Mahapalika, Varanasi. It was argued that this paper had been brought on the record by the plaintiff and consequently the burden lay on the plaintiff to summon the original and prove that the original contained the statement regarding enmity and further that it was signed by Dharam Nath Singh. It may be pointed out here that the grounds of appeal taken in this court do not mention this point at all. However, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point as well and, in my opinion, even if this paper Ex. 1 is kept apart, it will make no difference. It may be pointed out here that the grounds of appeal taken in this court do not mention this point at all. However, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point as well and, in my opinion, even if this paper Ex. 1 is kept apart, it will make no difference. It is clearly admitted in the evidence of the attesting witness DW-1 Baldeo that there was previous enmity between Dharam Nath and the defendant. It is also in evidence that a suit had been fought between these two brothers viz., the deceased and the defendant. It is, therefore clearly established that at one point of time the relationship between these two brothers was sour which led them to litigate over some property. It is true that there was a compromise arrived at between them in the suit, but that does not mean that their relations improved to this extent that the deceased would execute a Will in his favour leaving aside the other and the younger brother. There is no evidence to show as to when and how the relationship between the two brothers became close and intimate or improved to such extent leading to the execution of the Will. All that the defendant has said in his evidence is that "Dharam Nath sey aur mujh sey banti thi". This expression 'banti thi' is laconic. There is no positive statement by the defendant that they were in the best of terms, and there was enmity or no relationship with the other one, the plaintiff. The exclusion of the younger brother altogether from the property when admittedly Dharam Nath had no wife or issues left behind, is by itself a suspicious circumstance. There is no evidence except the recital in the will, Ex. A-3 as to why the younger brother was excluded altogether. I am, therefore, of the opinion that on the basis of the evidence on the record the lower appellate court has come to the correct conclusion that the defendant has not been able to prove either the due execution of the Will, nor has he been able to remove or explain away the suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will. 11. For the reason given above, I find no merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. For the reason given above, I find no merits in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs.