R. RAMAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant chikkegowda, is the appellant in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the courts-below. ( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit in O. S. No. 193/1975 in the court ofadditional munsiff and j. m. f. c. , tiptur for declaration of her title and permanent injunction against the appellant in respect of the suit schedule properties. She has also prayed for possession of the suit schedule properties, if the court were to hold that the appellant is in possession. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff based her suit on the ground that she was the daughter of late thimmegowda through his first wife thimmamma. One huchamma was married to his father after the death of her mother. The said huchamma also expired about 5 years back and therefore she has succeeded to the estate of her father doddathimmegowda. ( 4 ) THE appellant was the brother of late huchamma has interfered with the suit schedule properties on the ground that the said huchamma had executed a will dated 23-10-1970 bequeathing all the properties belonging to doddathimmegowda in his favour. The plaintiff questioned the genuineness of the will and contended that it was a document created by the appellant for the purpose of getting the suit properties. ( 5 ) THE appellant has disputed the very fact that doddathimme gowda had a first wife by name thimmamma and the plaintiff was born to the said thimmamma. He has further contended that doddalhimmegowda had no issues and therefore huchamma has succeeded the suit properties as an absolute owner and executed a will in his favour. After the death of huchamma, that is on 1-11-1979, he has become the owner in possession. ( 6 ) SRI Hanumantharayappa, the learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the courts-below have committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the will has not been proved, though there was evidence of P. W. 3 ramalingaiah, D. W. 2 yalakkegowda, the attesting witnesses and D. W. 4 byatarao, the scribe of ex. D. 1. The learned counsel also taken through this court, the evidence of these witnesses recorded in the trial court. I have heard the learned counsel at length. However, I am not persuaded to setting aside the concurrent order passed by the courts-below for the following reason. D. 1. The learned counsel also taken through this court, the evidence of these witnesses recorded in the trial court. I have heard the learned counsel at length. However, I am not persuaded to setting aside the concurrent order passed by the courts-below for the following reason. ( 7 ) THOUGH the trial court has laid as many as ten issues for determination, for purpose of this appeal, the consideration of (he following issues are sufficient. I) whether the plaintiff proves her title to the suit properties? II) whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit properties on the date of suit? III) whether the defendant proves that huchamma became the absolute owner of the suit properties and she bequeathed the suit properties in his favour by will dated 23-10-1970 as pleaded by the defendant in his written statement? Iv) whether the plaintiff proves that she is the daughter of late doddathim- megowda, by his second wife thimmamma? ( 8 ) THE trial court answered the first issue in the affirmative, second and third issues in the negative and the last in the affirmative. Having regard to the finding arrived at the issues, the trial court decreed the plaintiff suit declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit properties and she is also entitled to recover the possession of the suit properties from the defendant. The defendant has questioned the validity and correctness of this order in r. a. No. 30/1979 in the court of civil judge at tiptur. Having regard to the grounds made out in the appeal and also on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Advocate the first appellate court has formulated the points which are identical to the issues framed by the trial court and answered all the points in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal. ( 9 ) AT the time of admission, this court having regard to the concurrent findings of the courts-below, on the question that, the plaintiff was the daughter of thimmegowda through his first wife thimmamma, held that the same being a question of fact, it does not require any determination in this second appeal. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the genuineness and validity of the will ex. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the genuineness and validity of the will ex. D. 1 alleged to have been executed by the second wife huchamma in favour of the appellant after hearing the learned advocate, the following question is framed as substantial question of law required determination arising between the parties. "whether the finding of the courts-below that the execution and attestation of ex. D. 1 is not proved, is justified on the basis of the evidence on record. " ( 11 ) THE proof of execution of document required by law to be attested should bein accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, Section 68 reads thus:-"if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence: provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the Provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. " ( 12 ) THIS Section lays down that the documents required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence unless atleast one witness is called to prove, its execution if he is alive and subject to the process of the court. ( 13 ) THE principles which govern the proving of the will are well settled. The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of any other document as to the substantial requirement of attestation prescribed in Section 63 of the Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where there are suspicious circumstances the propounder has to explain them. Where the evidence of the attesting witness is doubtful or conflicting more reliable evidence and the surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration to hold the genuineness of a will. Where there are suspicious circumstances the propounder has to explain them. Where the evidence of the attesting witness is doubtful or conflicting more reliable evidence and the surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration to hold the genuineness of a will. ( 14 ) THE testator huchamma has died on 1-11-1970; i. e. , about 8 days after the alleged execution of the will. The attestors to this will were P. W. 3 ramalingaiah and D. W. 2 yalakkegowda. ( 15 ) THE courts-below have noted that P. W. 3 ramalingaiah, one of the attesting witness has stated in his evidence that he does not know what is written in the will and who wrote the will ex. D. 1. Similarly the witness for the appellant D. W. 2 yalakkegowda has also stated before the court in his evidence, that he does not know personally what exactly written in ex. D. 1 and further admitted that he does know who were all present at the time when the will was written. ( 16 ) IN view of these doubtful circumstances, the courts-below have not attached any credibility to ex. D. 1. There was also variance in the evidence in respect of the time of execution. The attesting witnesses gave different times of execution. It varied from one witness to another. The scribe byatarao, stated before the court that, he has written a will at about 11 or 11. 30 a. m. , on the contrary D. W. 2 yalakkegowda has stated that the will was written in between 3 and 4 p. m. ( 17 ) THE courts-below have also taken into consideration that when the plaintiff was surviving legal representative to late doddathimmegowda, the second wife huchamma had no right to execute the will in respect of the entire properties. ( 18 ) THE courts-below have given concurrent findings that the document relied upon by the defendant is not proved to be genuine and properly executed, was a finding on fact which would not be interfered in the second appeal. ( 19 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the will has not been proved as contemplated under law, there is absolutely no other material to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts-below. Hence I answer this question in the affirmative. ( 19 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the will has not been proved as contemplated under law, there is absolutely no other material to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts-below. Hence I answer this question in the affirmative. ( 20 ) IN the result this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties to beartheir own costs. --- *** --- .