JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.(Oral) This second appeal has been filed by Bhup Singh contesting defendant No. l being aggrieved from the judgment of reversal. Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and the "defendants". 2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed by the plaintiff’s studs allowed resulting in a decree as was claimed by them. 3. The suit land was admittedly owned and possessed by one Waziru. He had three sons namely Ram Krishan, Dev and Ram Saran. Ram Krishan and Dev are the plaintiffs in the case whereas the third son who is their real brother has been arrayed as proforma defendant No.2. The contesting defendant No.l Bhup Singh is the son of Ram Saran defendant Mo.2. 4. Admittedly on the death of Waziru, the property left behind by him came to be inherited by the three above said sons along with his widow Smt. Kanyaktu the mutation in this respect was sanctioned in their favour in the year 1980. Smt. Kanyaktu the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 who inherited 1/4th Share of the estate left behind by Waziru made a wilt of her share so inherited by her in, favour of her grandson on 27th July, 1976. Challenge has been made to this will by the plaintiffs on the ground that the will was got executed at a different place and that the executants was living with the plaintiffs and there was ho occasion to discard them from inheritance. It-is also said that the witnesses of the will belong to different locality and die will was got executed under suspicious circumstances. It is also stated that the plaintiffs used to render services to her till her last and there was hardly any occasion for her to execute the will in favour of the defendant No. l who was only six years old at that time and was hardly capable of rendering’ any service to the deceased Kanyaktu. It is also being argued that Kanyaktu was 70 years old, and was not possessing sound mental faculties. Lastly, it is being said that there was a considerable delay to bring the will question on the surface almost after five years of its execution. 5. The learned trial Court found that the will has been validly executed. It is also being argued that Kanyaktu was 70 years old, and was not possessing sound mental faculties. Lastly, it is being said that there was a considerable delay to bring the will question on the surface almost after five years of its execution. 5. The learned trial Court found that the will has been validly executed. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was consequently ordered to be dismissed. The learned first appellate -Court on the ground mentioned above earlier in the judgment reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and held that the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and has not been validly executed. The appeal came to be allowed resulting in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as was prayed for by them. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendant while opening his address contends that the learned first appellate Court has wrongly held the will to be invalid and surrounded by suspicious circum- Stances. Reliance is being placed on the observations made by the learned “trial Court and the reasoning adopted by it leading to dismissal of the suit. It is further contended that the will has been made in favour of the real grandson and it has bees established on record that Smt. Kanyaktu was living with her son defendant No.2 Ram Saran who is the father of the contesting defendant. It is also being argued that in the body of the will, it has been stated by her that as she is getting old, the grandson would take care of her and on the ground of deep love and affection; the will is being made in his favour. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has, in reply, adopted the same line of reasoning as has been given by the learned first appellate Court in doubting the validity of the will. It is further stated that Smt. Kanyaktu was living with the plaintiffs till her last and some other woman was produced before the Tehsildar for the purposes of registration and it is a case of impersonation. My attention has also been, brought to the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. 8. It is further stated that Smt. Kanyaktu was living with the plaintiffs till her last and some other woman was produced before the Tehsildar for the purposes of registration and it is a case of impersonation. My attention has also been, brought to the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and oh careful examination of the impugned judgment and the record, I am of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Both the attesting witnesses have appeared: - support of the due execution of the will Ex PW-3/A. It has further come on record that the deceased was living with her son Ram Saran defendant Mo.2 and was being looked after by him and by the grandson defendant No. I in whose favour the will came to be executed. Both the attesting witnesses have given complete details of the due execution of the will and its registration. One of the attesting witness is a member of the Panchayat at Patyani. Smt. Kanyaktu is said to have gone to his house and has expressed, sic to make the will and he is said to have accompanied her to Tehsil Chachiot where the will was scribed and latter got registered. Both these attesting witnesses i.e. Roop Singh and Bhim Singh have deposed that the contents of the will were fully read over and explained to Smt Kanyaktu where after she put her thumb impression in token of its correctness. 10. One Noku Ram Naib Tehsildar has been produced as DW-4 who had identified Smt. Kanyaktu before the Sub -Registrar, Chachiot. He has deposed that the will was again read over to her by the Tehsildar and she admitted the correctness of its contents and then thumb marked it. The will being registered further lead to its authenticity. There is nothing on the record to project that the will is unnatural or suspicious. There is further no evidence placed on record that Kanyaktu was suffering from any mental disorder. She is said to be about 70 years of age and as per statement given by Roop Singh the attesting witness, she herself came to his house and expressed desire to execute the will in favour of her grandson. There is further no evidence placed on record that Kanyaktu was suffering from any mental disorder. She is said to be about 70 years of age and as per statement given by Roop Singh the attesting witness, she herself came to his house and expressed desire to execute the will in favour of her grandson. In case the version put forth by the plaintiffs mat the deceased was living with them till her death is accepted, it is all the more reason to accept the fact that she must not be feeling Happy with their services and for that reason, they were ignored. No witness from the village has been produced by the plaintiffs to the effect that the deceased was living with them and the plaintiffs were rendering services to her. 11. It has come in evidence that Waziru had partitioned his property in four equal shares quite sometime back. One share was retained by him till his death. It has also come in evidence that Waziru was living with his son Ram Saran defendant No.2. It would thus follow that the share retained by Waizru was at no stage given to anyone, least the plaintiffs. Smt. Kanyaktu. Inherited that share on the death of her husband. It has come on record that she was living with the defendants. It is again an admitted position that Ram Saran is in possession of the share left behind by his farther and for that purpose, the plaintiffs have also prayed for a decree for joint possession. 12. The plaintiffs thus cannot be believed that their mother lived with them till her last. So far as impersonation is concerned, no evidence has been placed from the side of the plaintiffs to that effect If on the relevant date she was living with die plaintiffs and someone else has impersonated in her place, the plaintiffs could produce witness from the neighborhood to the effect that Smt. Kanyaktu was living with them. 13. The point that the will was got registered at a different place if also not found to be a suspicious circumstance. It has come on record that Sadar Mandi is 25 Kms. from the village Patyani where Smt. Kanyaktu was living. Chachiot where the will was got registered is only seven Kms. from the place. 13. The point that the will was got registered at a different place if also not found to be a suspicious circumstance. It has come on record that Sadar Mandi is 25 Kms. from the village Patyani where Smt. Kanyaktu was living. Chachiot where the will was got registered is only seven Kms. from the place. Simply because the will was not got registered at Mandi is no ground to hold that the will is suspicious or someone else impersonated in place of Smt I Kanyaktu. Though the defendant No. 1 was only six years of age at the time of execution of the will, but, as pointed out by the learned trial Court; Smt Kanyaktu could not foresee that her end was so near. She hoped to live long and expected good services from her grandson defendant No. l. 14. It should be kept in view that the deceased was living with none else, but with the defendants. During the course of her stay, she might have developed love and affection with her grandson and it is not something strange for the grand parents to develop more love towards their grand children than their own children. The other paint that the will did not see the light of the day till the year 1981 is also not a suspicious circumstances to hold the will invalid. It has also come in evidence that the defendant No.2 the father of the defendant No. 1 had gone to the Patwari for the purposes of mutation on the basis of the will and it was the revenue Patwari who advised him to place the same before the Tehsildar when he comes to the village for the purposes of attestation of mutation in respect of inheritance of the deceased. The will was consequently produced on 10-9-1981 during the visit of the Tehsildar for Lie purposes of attestation of mutation regarding the inheritance of the deceased. 15. In my view, the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the controversy between the parties and the correct findings came to be recorded holding the will to be valid. The learned first appellate Court has laid much stress on certain circumstances which in my view cannot be held to be suspicious. 16. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds. 15. In my view, the learned trial Court rightly appreciated the controversy between the parties and the correct findings came to be recorded holding the will to be valid. The learned first appellate Court has laid much stress on certain circumstances which in my view cannot be held to be suspicious. 16. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court is set-aside and the one passed by the learned trial Court is upheld. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.