JUDGMENT P. K. Palli J.—Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was decreed by the learned trial Court and on appeal by the defendants/respondents, the judgment and decree stands reversed. The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court. The parties, hereinafter in the judgment, would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. 2. The suit was originally filed by one Dhian Singh who has now been succeeded by his son Gulzari lal. It is said that Kanshi Ram, who died on 13-6-1980, was issueless and his wife had pre-deceased him. He was old, weak and not in sound mind.It is also said that he had lost his eye sight and was hard of hearing and farther, he could not recognise any one. Defendants No. 1 to 6 were with him during his last days and by exercising undue influence, fraud and misrepresentation, a Will Ext. D-l dated 9-4-1980 was got executed from Shri Kanshi Ram in their favour. Kanshi Ram, admittedly, died on 13-6-1980. A general power of attorney Ext. D-2 is also said to have been executed by Kanshi Ram and on the strength of that power of attorney, twenty Kanals 15 Marlas of land stood sold by the said Attorney in the after-noon of 13-6-1980. The relief claimed was that the plaintiff was not bound by these documents and these were result of fraud and the plaintiff was entitled to 1/2 share in the property as well as in the sale proceeds. 3. The defendants, while resisting the suit, though admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with Kanshi Ram, yet proceeded to allege that he was being looked after and maintained by them. He was in sound disposing mind till his death although he was weak. The charge of fraud, coercion and misrepresentation stands specifically denied. 4. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material brought on record by the parties, held that the Will Ext D-l and the general power of attorney Ext D-2 are null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. He was consequently held entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property and further entitled to its possession. It was further declared that the land sold by defendant No, 4, shall be treated as a set off against the half share of the defendants in the estate of Shri Kanshi Ram deceased. 5. He was consequently held entitled to 1/2 share in the suit property and further entitled to its possession. It was further declared that the land sold by defendant No, 4, shall be treated as a set off against the half share of the defendants in the estate of Shri Kanshi Ram deceased. 5. On appeal, the learned first appellate Court has reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and while accepting the appeal, it has been held that the Will as well as general power of attorney were perfectly valid and had been executed by Shri Kanshi Ram. As a sequence. 6 Learned Counsel for the plaintiff, while opening arguments, submits that the learned first appellate Court while reversing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, has mis-read the evidence placed on record which conclusively proves that the Will as well as the general power of attorney, i. e. Ext D-l and Ext. D-2, respectively, are result of fraud and misrepresentation and that the learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is pointed out that the medical certificate Ext, PW 11/A proves, beyond doubt, that the decease d was a weak and bedridden person and was 100 year old. He had lost his eye sight also and was not aware of the things around him. 7. After going through the record with the help of the learned Counsel, it is nowhere found that the doctor had reported that the deceased was not in his perfect senses or did not know his good or bad. On close scrutiny of this report, I find that the doctor has stated that the deceased was showing some degree of interest in his surroundings and also recognised persons The general intelligence has been said to be satisfactory. It was also said that there were features of forgetfulness but the patient otherwise had senses. 8. It is next contended that there was a gap in between the two thumb- impressions on the Will This point carries no value as there is a stamp of the Deed Writer in between these thumb-impressions. The leaving of the space between the thumb impressions does not make the said Will doubtful. 9. It is next said that the words 4LTF or RTF have not been written near the thumb impressions. The leaving of the space between the thumb impressions does not make the said Will doubtful. 9. It is next said that the words 4LTF or RTF have not been written near the thumb impressions. It is not the case of the plaintiff that there was thumb impression of some-one else on (he Will It may be pointed out that the execution of the Will is not denied What is said, is that the said Will is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and that the executant was not in sound state of health at the time of the execution of the said Will. In my view, even if the wards ITP or RTI are not written, this would not make by itself a suspicious circumstance, particularly, when the marginal witnesses as well as the Sub-Registrar, who have appeared in the Court as witnesses, have unambiguously stared that the contents of the Will as well as the power of attorney were thoroughly read over and explained to the executant. Simply because the words read over and explained are not written in the Will, it would not be a circumstance to discard the Will altogether. 10. Learned Counsel further lays stress that the beneficiaries took active part in the preparation of the Will. No circumstance has been brought to my notice from where it could be so projected. 11. It is further submitted that there existed a Will earlier and the same was not specifically cancelled in the Will in dispute. In ray view, no specific mention has to be made. The moment the new Will of a later date comes into existence, all Wills executed prior in time stand automatically cancelled. 12. The learned Counsel has further read over the statements of DW 2, DW 3 and DW 4 to the effect that the deceased wanted to give the property to all his grand-sons including the plaintiff. 13. The words used by these witnesses are that "LARKON KO DENA CHAHTA HNOO" and the learned Counsel is at pains to submit that it would mean that all the grand-sons and the plaintiff is also the grand-son of the deceased. 14. An exhaustive reading of these statements does not advance the case of the plaintiff at all. The statements were being made with reference to the context. 15 It is also contended that the executant was weak and could not walk. 14. An exhaustive reading of these statements does not advance the case of the plaintiff at all. The statements were being made with reference to the context. 15 It is also contended that the executant was weak and could not walk. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to who brought the application for securing the presence of the Sub-Registrar in the village. It was for the plaintiff to cross-examine the Sub-Registrar on the point and he would have explained, No question to that effect was put to any of the witnesses 16. It is next stated that according to the statement of DW 3f the executant had died on the morning of 13-6-1980 and the Attorney had sold out the land that very day on the strength of the general power of attorney Ext. D-2. The said deed is said to have been executed at 2 00 p. m. It is, thus, sought to be argued that the executant had already died and, thus, putting an end to the powers of the general attorney. 17. It is to be seen that nothing has been brought by any piece of evidence on record that the general attorney had come to know of the death of the executant Once he was holding the valid general power of attorney, the sale could not be held to be invalid on that account. Moreover, the purchaser has not been impleaded as a party to this case. 18. Finally, the learned Counsel has pressed in service the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1939 SC 443, H. Venkatachala lyengar v, B. N Thimmajamma and others, and on the basis of this judgment, it is stressed that several tests have been laid therein for holding the Will to be valid and in the present case, if the doubtful circumstances are weighed, on the analogy of the Supreme Court decision, the Will as well as the power of attorney have to be held invalid. 19. Having carefully gone through this judgment, I find that it is of no help to the plaintiff as all suspicious circumstances which are agitated before me have been taken note of and stand answered in the judgment above 20. 19. Having carefully gone through this judgment, I find that it is of no help to the plaintiff as all suspicious circumstances which are agitated before me have been taken note of and stand answered in the judgment above 20. Learned Counsel for the defendants brings to my notice that a suit had been filed by the plaintiff earlier also laying challenge to the Will and this suit was filed m the life time of Kanshi Ram deceased, This suit was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, therefore, the defendants can draw no benefit from it. One thing, of course, that cannot be lost sight of, is that Kanshi Ram was not made a party to that suit. This fact, of course, goes against the plaintiff 21. A reading of the statement of PW 1, Dhian Singh shows that deceased Kanshi Ram used to live with the defendants who were maintaining him and serving him. This would constitute to be an admission on his part. Another fact that has been brought to my notice, is the statement of PW 4, Gurmail Singh Some agreement of sale was executed on 7-4-1980 on behalf of deceased Kanshi Ram in favour of Smt. Sheela Nothing has been said that deceased Kanshi Ram was in such a bad state of health that him this agreement was got executed he was not in sound state of mind. If he was in sound, disposing mind on 7-4 1980, nothing happened in two days on the strength of which the Will and the general power of attorney, executed on 9-4-f 980, could be held to be invalid. PW 6 Bachiter Singh^ who has been produced by the plaintiff himself, admits that Raghunath Singh used to act on behalf of Kanshi Ram and had been doing all odd jobs for him. 22. The next witness is Lachhman, PW 9, who is the scribe and has been produced by the plaintiff He has stated, on oath, that the documents were read over to the executant and after having accepted it, he put his thumb-impression. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also raised another point that since the executant had a very weak eye-sight, it has not been explained as to how he put his thumb-impression and with whose help. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has also raised another point that since the executant had a very weak eye-sight, it has not been explained as to how he put his thumb-impression and with whose help. It was for the plaintiff to have cross-examined the witnesses on the point and a reply would have come to this question. 23. In my view, no such suspicious circumstance has been pointed out on the strength of which the Will and the general power of attorney could be held invalid or discarded- Though lot of stress has been made on fraud and misrepresentation, yet no such fraud or misrepresentation has been brought to my notice The particulars, as required by law to be pleaded, are conspicuously missing in the plaint. The statements of the Sub-Registrar and the marginal witnesses of the Will inspire confidence and nothing has been brought out from their statements during cross-examination which would make me to disbelieve their version. The Will, thus, appears to be in natural sequence of events. The defendants are the sons of the real brother of Kanshi Ram deceased. There appears nothing to be unnatural in bequeathing the property in favour of the defendants in view of the admitted position that the deceased was being looked after by the defendants who were serving him in his last days. It may be for this reason that the defendants were chosen for conferring the benefit by deceased Kanshi Ram and other heirs, including the plaintiff, were discarded. 24. In my view, the learned first appellate Court rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court is exhaustive, well-reasoned and has taken into account the minutest details of every piece of evidence placed on record. No case has been made out before me for taking a different view than the one arrived at by the learned first appellate Court. No other point has been stressed, 25. In view of what has been said above, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed, No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.