JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - There are two second appeals against the order dated November 15, 1985 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the two appeals and upheld the judgment of the trial court dated July 13, 1983. The trial court has dismissed the suit. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit was filed on August 11, 1981 by Krishna Kumar and Sanjay Kumar against Smt. Surjo and others for declaration of cotenancy rights over the plots in suit. It is alleged that a will was executed by one of the co-tenants Jethu on January 30, 1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant Mst. Surjo filed written statement on November 15, 1981. She denied the right and execution of will in favour of the plaintiffs. She inter alia alleged that he is the sole tenant of the plots in dispute. Admittedly the land originally belonged to Jethu (deceased) and Smt. Surjo. After the death of the Jethu mutation proceedings stated and in that the plaintiffs failed and that Sm. Surjo remained to be the tenant of the lot in suit. Hence the present suit for declaration of Co-tenancy right has been filed. Parties have examined the witnesses and produced the evidence. After that the trial court dismissed both the suits on the ground that suspicious circumstances (narrated by the court) made the execution and attestation of the will doubtful. Thus this issue has been decided in negative. The lower appellate court has also dismissed the two appeals and upheld the judgment of the trial court. It has given reasons for accepting the findings given by the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the reasons given by both the courts for not believing the will is not proper and genuine. Hence it should not be accepted. It is further contended that the issue of adoption has not been made and the finding should be given specifically on the point. But so far as this aspect is concerned there is no pleading hence there is no question of any issue. The learned counsel after perusing the papers also did not try to press this point. It is further contended that the issue of adoption has not been made and the finding should be given specifically on the point. But so far as this aspect is concerned there is no pleading hence there is no question of any issue. The learned counsel after perusing the papers also did not try to press this point. Moreover, this point has been discussed by the courts below as one of the grounds for making the execution and attestation of the will suspicious. Hence the issue and the point of adoption was not an important matter to be decided in this case. So far as the first point is concerned it is clear that the findings on issued No. 2 has been given by both the courts is negative and it cannot be said that they have given this finding on no reasoning or on no ground. The reasoning's and grounds given by the courts below can be said to have other inferences also but that cannot be a ground for interference in the second appeal. In the presence of suspicious circumstances due execution and attestation of the will are not proved. Such suspicion should be satisfactorily explained by the other side. In absence of this the very execution and attestation of will are not proved. It is observed in the Supreme Court ruling in Smt. Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another, 1982 AIR SC 133. Hence the question of validity of will as void or voidable document does not arise in the present case. In Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev, 1962 AIR (SC) 567 a circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal and it is not normally accepted in a normal situation or is not accepted on a normal situation or is not accepted by a normal person. 5. Thus the finding is dead finding of fact based on the reasons. There is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the judgments of the courts below. I therefore see not reason to interfere in second appeal. 6. Hence both the second appeals are dismissed with costs. 7. A copy of this order maybe placed in S.A. No. 24 of 1985-86, district Bijnor.