JUDGMENT 1. :- This is plaintiff's special appeal arising out of the judgment dated 28.5.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the First Appeal No. 63/82. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit No. 42/79 (97/75) for declaration of her title and possession over 'Haveli' Rawal Pani Wala situated in Chowkari Ghat Darwaja, Jaipur. 3. Her case was that 'Haveli' belonged to one Rai Bahadur Sardar Gurudutt Singh. It was his self acquired property. He died on 19.12.1947. 4. Laxmi Narain was his only son. He died in the life-time of his father, leaving behind his widow Smt. Gopi Bai. Thus, at the time of his death, his father Sardar Gurudutt Singh, his moths Smt. Gulabi Bai and his widow Smt Gopi Bai, were alive. 5. Smt. Gopi Bai brought her sister's son Gopal'Singh in her family. He was brought up by Gurudutt Singh and Gulab Bai as sdn of Smt. Gopi Bai. The plaintiff-appellant, Smt. Gattu Bai, is the wife of Shri Gopal Singh, the defendant No.2. 6. Her case further was that Gopal Singh developed bad habits of gambling and 'satta'. Inspite of warnings of Gurudutt Singh he did not mend his ways. So, Gurudutt Singh executed a will on 21.4.1946 bequeathing the 'Haveli' in her favour and all his cash, ornaments and other movable property were given to his wife Smt. Gulab Bai and his daughter-in-law, Gopi Bai. 7. Shri Gurudutt Singh died on 9.12.1947. His widow Smt. Bulab Bai, daughter-in-law Smt. Gopi Bai, and Gopal Singh mortgaged the 'Haveli' in favour of Smt. Bhanwari Devi, who was the mother of Ladu Narain, the defendant No.1 for taking a loan of Rs. 7999/- at the rate of Rs. 1/- per month as interest. 8. After executing the mortgage-deed, Bulab Bai died in 1952 and Gopi Bai died in 1964. 9. On 13.8.1964, Ladu Narain (defendant No.1) filed a suit for realisation of the mortgage money against Gopal Singh. A preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 30,722.26p. was passed on 27.8.1965. This decree was challenged by Gopal Singh (defendant No.2) in appeal but there was no stay order. An application for execution was also filed. In execution of the decree, the 'Haveli' was put to auction on 23.1.1967. Auction sale took place. It was confirmed in favour of Ladu Narain (defendant No.1), on 18.2.1970. The respondent No.2 Gopal Singh again challenged this order by filing an appeal. An application for execution was also filed. In execution of the decree, the 'Haveli' was put to auction on 23.1.1967. Auction sale took place. It was confirmed in favour of Ladu Narain (defendant No.1), on 18.2.1970. The respondent No.2 Gopal Singh again challenged this order by filing an appeal. 10. Both the appeals, one against the preliminary decree and the other against the confirmation of sale, were decided on 25.3.1971. The decretal amount was reduced from Rs. 30,722.26p. to Rs. 19,878.36p. The confirmation of sale was set aside. The executing Court was directed to decide the judgment-debtor's objections on merit. His objections were rejected by the execution Court on 20.3.1970. An appeal was filed. It was dismissed on 27.10.1972. Sale stood confirmed. The respondent even did not pay the reduced decretal amount. On 16.11.1972, the plaintiff-appellant filed the present suit for declaration of right over the 'Haveli' against Ladu Narain (defendant No.1) impleading her husband Gopal Singh as defendant No.2. She came forward with a case that Gurudutt Singh had executed a will in her favour on 21.4.1946. After his death, she became so owner in possession of the 'Haveli'. Neither Gulab Bai, nor Gopi Bai and nor even Gopal Singh had any right to execute any mortgage-deed in favour of the defendant No. The 'Haveli' could not be sold in auction.She further stated that Shri Gurudutt Singh after executing the will, handed over the same to one Parwati Devi. She was working as a maid-servant in the house and she died in 1972. After her death, one Lallu Lal, a relation of Parwati Devi, found the will in her house and informed the plaintiff about the existence of the will. Relying upon this will, she sought the declaration that the decree for realisation of the amount in favour of the defendant No.1 against her husband, the defendant No.2, was not binding on her. Except her, nobody else has any right to the property. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 on the ground that the alleged will was a forged document. After the decree was passed in the suit of 1964 filed by the defendant No.1 and it became final, the alleged will has been set up in Suit No. 42/79 to defeat the said decree. 11. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the 'Haveli' in dispute was the sole property of Sardar Gurudutt Singh. After the decree was passed in the suit of 1964 filed by the defendant No.1 and it became final, the alleged will has been set up in Suit No. 42/79 to defeat the said decree. 11. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the 'Haveli' in dispute was the sole property of Sardar Gurudutt Singh. The plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged will. 12. The will is said to have been written by Gurudutt Singh in his own hand-writing on 21.5.1946. It was attested by Gendi Lal and Kale Khan. It is said that these attesting witnesses are dead. 13. In order to prove the due attestation of the will, the plaintiff examined Shri Badri Narain (PW-2), the adopted son of Gendi Lal, and Shri Ahmad Ali (PW-6). Shri Kishan Chand (PW-9) appeared as hand-writing expert. 14. The alleged will has been written in Urdu whereas Gurudutt Singh has signed it in English as well as Urdu. 15. Badri Narain (PW-2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he had never seen Shri Gurudutt Singh writing or signing. Similarly, Shri Ahmad Ali (PW-6), in his cross-examination, stated that he could not identify the signatures of Shri Gurudutt Singh which had been made by him in English and Urdu Languages. 16. After discussing the evidence in detail, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the alleged will was in the hand-writing of Gurudutt Singh and has been signed by him. The document was a suspicious one. 17. According to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, in order to prove the due attestation of the will, the propounder of the will has to prove that both the witnesses saw the testator sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator, as held by the Supreme Court in Girja Datt v. Gangotri Datt. V AIR 1955 SC 346 . 18. While considering the scope of Sections 45, 47, 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others AIR 1959 SC 443 expressed the view that under Section 67 the signature of the person, said to have signed the will, must be proved to be in his hand-writing. In order to prove this fact, the opinions of the expert and the persons acquainted with the hand-writing are relevant. The document which is required to be attested, the attestation has to be proved according to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Unless the attestation was proved, the document could not be read in evidence. The propounder, in addition to that, has to prove that the document was the last will of the testator. 19. In the instant case, the plaintiff has brought no evidence on record to show that it was the last will of Gurudutt Singh and she has further failed to prove that it was executed by him. The due attestation could also not be proved. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the document being a suspicious one also can not be ruled out. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have removed the suspicion and should have established it to be a genuine document but she has failed in doing so. 20. In order to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to find out the truth, the Court is not confined only to the testimony of the witnesses. It is always open to the Court to consider the circumstances brought out in the evidence in order to examine the genuineness of the document. The Court can always look into the surrounding circumstances as well as the improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the testator. 21. Bringing the will in existence by the plaintiff after losing the property by her husband in the suit filed by Ladu Ram, defendant No.1, in 1964, does not inspire confidence. It is a devise to frustrate the decree obtained by Ladu Narain (defendant No.1) which has attained finality. Moreover, the alleged will coming from the possession of the maid-servant, becomes extremely suspicious. The normal conduct of a person executing a will is that such documents are left in safe custody either with some trusted relation or friend, moreover, when huge property is involved. 22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in affirming the judgment & decree of the trial Court while dismissing he appeal. 22. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in affirming the judgment & decree of the trial Court while dismissing he appeal. He has taken into consideration all the aspects of the matter particularly the execution and attestation the alleged will. 23. For the reasons given above, the special appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******