JUDGMENT P.K, PALLI, J. —This second appeal has been filed by the defendants, who are aggrieved against the judgment of reversal, parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendants. 2. Defendant No. 2 has also filed an application i.e., CMP NO. 220/1997 under Order 32 rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that he wants to proceed with the defence of the suit as well as in the appeal as he has atained majority and his guardian, who is his father, be ordered to be discharged. Another application has been filed by this very defendant i.e., CMP No. 221/1997 under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that he be permitted to amend the written statement filed by his father and guardian on his behalf as the father had not properly defended him and many important pleas which were essential to be raised in the written statement have not been raised by him. This application has been vehemently contested by the other side. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of Order 32 rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the considered opinion that the application is not maintainable under the said provisions. On my pointedly asking the learned counsel to point out any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure wherein such an application with this prayer can be entertained. No satisfactory reply has been given. In rule 12 of Order 32, it is open only to the minor plaintiff on attaining majority to elect whether he would proceed with the suit and in case he elects to proceed as such, he would then apply for an order discharging a next friend and for leave to proceed in his own name. The application is, thus, not maintainable and is ordered to be rejected. 3. Since the application under Order 32 rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed, application seeking amendment cannot be entertained unless the other application moved by the defendant is allowed, consequently, this application is also ordered to be rejected and the appeal is being disposed of on merits. 4. The property in question was admittedly owned and possessed by one Sohan Singh who died on 5-11-1980. 4. The property in question was admittedly owned and possessed by one Sohan Singh who died on 5-11-1980. Deceased Sohan Singh left behind his widow Janki Devi, who was impleaded as proforma defendant No. 3. Sarwan Devi and Sita Devi, daughters were impleaded as proforma defendants No. 4 and 5. The plaintiff is his son, defendant No. 1, is also the son of Sohan Singh and the real brother of plaintiff Behari Lal Sanjiv Kumar, defendant No. 2 is the minor son of Jagdish Ram, defendant No, 1. 5. Before his death Sohan Singh executed a will which is Ex. DW-2/A on record and is dated 3rd of November, 1980. Sohan Singh died on 5-11-1980, as per Ex-DW-6/1 6. Suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration to the effect that he alongwith defendants No. 1, 3 to 5, is entitled to equal share in the property left be-, hind by the deceased Sohan Singh. According to the plaintiff the estate has devolved upon them as class-l-heirs. Chalenge was also made to the will executed by Sohan Singh that the same is forged and is not binding on the plaintiff and proforma-defendants. 7. In defence defendants No. 1 and 2 pleaded that a valid will came to be executed by Sohan Singh in favour of defendant No. 1, his son, defendant No. 2 his grand-son and the plaintiff in equal shares and the deceased was of perfect of sound mind and the will had come in existence in lieu of the services rendered by the contesting defendants. 8. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff, in view of the will, got more than 1/3rd share in the property and if all the heirs are held entitled to succeed, he would get only 1/5th share and therefore, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. 9. The only issue that had arisen out of the controversy between the parties was in respect of the validity of the will. 10. Learned trial court, on appreciation of material placed on record by the parties, held that the will has been validly and legally proved and there was no suspicious circumstance on the basis of which the will could be rejected After scrutinizing the evidence, the suit was ordered to be dismissed with costs. 11. 10. Learned trial court, on appreciation of material placed on record by the parties, held that the will has been validly and legally proved and there was no suspicious circumstance on the basis of which the will could be rejected After scrutinizing the evidence, the suit was ordered to be dismissed with costs. 11. That the proforma defendants joined the plaintiff in laying challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in first appeal. The learned first appellate court after re-appraisal of the material held that the will is shrouded by several suspicious circumstances and is not an act of voluntary disposition. The appeal stands accepted, resulting in decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 12. Mr Bhupender Gupta and Mr. G.D. Verma learned counsel for the appellants, have vehemently argued that there was no occasion for the learned first appellate court to set aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial court end the acceptance of the appeal has resulted in miscarriage of justice as it is based on mis-reading and mis-construction of the record, it is urged from the side of the defendants that there were no suspicious circumstances and the will in question is in natural flow, free from any doubt and the court has to analyse the evidence from the point of view of the testator. 13. Learned counsel have taken me through the pleadings and evidence placed on record and it is sought to be urged that the learned first appellate court made out completely a new case for the plaintiff which was not even pleaded by him. I have been taken through the statement of the plaintiff, wherein it is pointed out that he never looked after his deceased father nor rendered any services to him when he was on death bed. He came after four days of the death and went away next day and did not even attend the PAGRC Ceremony. It is also said that he neither went to Haridwar nor to Pehewa for the rituals to be performed after the death and from the very beginning he has been living at Ludhiana where he is running a Hotel and these were only defendants who looked after the deceased who was Jiving with them and was pleased with their services. The will came to be executed by a voluntary act, 14. The will came to be executed by a voluntary act, 14. It is also being argued that the deceased, though quite old, was not suffering from any infirmity or mental imbalance, nor there was any evidence to that effect and the will is valid and legal and the suit filed by the plaintiff deserved to be dismissed. 15. Mr. Sood in reply to the arguments raised from the side fo the defendants has adopted the same line of reasoning as projected by the learned first appellate court in the impugned judgment, it is further urged that defendant No. 1 had taken active participation in the execution of the will and no important person from the village was joined, which is a strong suspicious ground to discard the will. Learned counsel has also taken me through the statement made by the widow of the deceased examined as PW-4 as well as other statements made by the attesting witnesses and several discrepancies occurring therein have been highlighted. Mr. Sood further contends that it was for the propounder to remove all suspicious circumstances attending the will and the defendants have miserably failed to remove these doubts and there was nothing wrong in the impugned judgment, so as to set aside the same. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on careful perusal of the judgments and the record, I find that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 17. It may be noticed that when the appeal was pending, an application for comparison of the disputed thumb impression was filed, which was allowed The admitted thumb impression on the sale deed and the disputed thumb impression of the testator on the will Ex, DW-2/A alongwith register of the Petition writer were sent to the Finger Print Bureau, at Phillaur for comparison A report was received that the thumb impression on the will is ink smugged, faint and does not admit of comparison. The report, thus, does not help either party nor it solves the controversy raised. 18. In case the defendants doubted the thumb impression of the testator, they could have easily produced an expert which or course they have not adopted. Be that as it may. The case has to be decided on the existing evidence. 19. The report, thus, does not help either party nor it solves the controversy raised. 18. In case the defendants doubted the thumb impression of the testator, they could have easily produced an expert which or course they have not adopted. Be that as it may. The case has to be decided on the existing evidence. 19. What weighed with the learned first appellate court to discard the will was that Sohan Singh was not keeping good health for quite sometime prior to his death. He admittedly owned property in two villages at a distance of six kilometers. The defendants were residing at village Tabba, whereas the testator lived in different village. It has come in evidence that Sohan Singh was taken by the defendants to their village prior to his death and died there two days after the execution of the will. 20. It has also been observed by the learned court that there were discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses in respect to the place where the will was executed. It has also been found that defendant No. 1 Jagdish Ram personally invited the witnesses to attest the will and also secured the help of his father-in-law for that purpose. Another circumstance that has weighed with the learned court is that the testator was a Rajput, whereas attesting witness of the will Bachittar Singh, DW-4, is a Harijan Lambardar of village Santokhgarh which is at a distance of three kilometers. Other witness Nardev Singh is also said to be from a different village. Another circumstance that has weighed with the learned court is the statement of Gurmail Singh scribe, who made the different statement before the Sub Registrar of Documents in connection with the proceedings for registration of the will. It was in this situation that the will was rejected and it was observed that the defendants had the advantage of influencing the mind of the testator in getting the will executed. 21. A reading of the record shows that the will is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. The will has to be proved like any other document and the only thing that makes the will to be considered valid is the requirement of attestation as per Section 68 of the Succession Act. Simply because the witnesses happened to be from two different vilages by itself would not be a ground toy discard the will. The will has to be proved like any other document and the only thing that makes the will to be considered valid is the requirement of attestation as per Section 68 of the Succession Act. Simply because the witnesses happened to be from two different vilages by itself would not be a ground toy discard the will. The deceased had met both these witnesses i.e., Bachittar Singh and Nardev Singh, earlier and expressed his desire to execute a will and that he would call them as and when necessary. DW-2 Gurmail Singh is the scribe of Wil. A reading of the statements of these persons does not create any doubt except minor discrepancies here or there in respect of the place where the will was executed. It may be noticed that the statements were being made by them after about three years from the date of the execution of the will and such type of discrepancies are wholly immaterial, so as to discard the will altogether, DW-4 is Lambardar of the village. Nardev Singh, the other witness examined as DW-5, is the Pradhan of village Tabba. It may be noticed here that the deceased had also left landed property in village Tabba. The statements of these persons have been wrongly discarded as they hail from different villages. 22. Regarding role played by defendant No. 1, it may be observed that the testator was admittedly in bed and at the relevant time, was with defendants No. 1 and 2. In the given situation, if defendant No. 1 was asked by the testator to go and bring the witnesses or the scribe, it would not be a ground which can be said to be suspicious to discard the will. It is really strange that in the situation the testator instead of asking his own son would send for some other persons, who are totally strangers to help him in the execution of the will. 23. Defendant No. 2 is the grand-son of the deceased. Giving share out of the property held by the deceased to his grand-son, is also the natural flow of love and affection towards grand children by their grand parents. 24. The plaintiff, though, visited the deceased a few days before his death but left him without rendering any service. He is admittedly running his business of a Hotel at Ludhiana. Giving share out of the property held by the deceased to his grand-son, is also the natural flow of love and affection towards grand children by their grand parents. 24. The plaintiff, though, visited the deceased a few days before his death but left him without rendering any service. He is admittedly running his business of a Hotel at Ludhiana. He came for one day after the death and went away on the very next day. He did not even care to attend the "KRIYA" ceremony or to take the ashes of his deceased father to Haridwar or Pehewa for immersion. All these rituals and ceremonies were performed by Jagdish Ram, defendant No. 1 the other son. 25. No evidence has come on record that the deceased was in that bad shape that he could not know what he is doing or that he was influenced by the defendants in the execution of the will. Not a word has been said in the evidence I that the mental condition of the deceased had deteriorated to the extent that no | valid will could be executed by him out of his own voluntary act. 26. Testator, in the will, has already made an expression that the two daughters are perfectly happy in their matrimonial homes and he has given them sufficient enough. It has also been said in the will that defendant Jagdish Ram would look-after his mother i.e., the widow of the deceased till her life time. 27. in the will testator had made provision for the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 in equal shares. In case defendant No. 1, 2 had exercised undue influence over the testator there was no difficulty in his way to get the will executed exclusively in his own favour or in favour of defendant No. 2, his son. 28. Though the plaintiff never served his father and his act and conduct immediately before and after the death is also not appreciated, still the testator has given him 1/3rd share in the property left behind by him. The will, thus, cannot be held to be unnatural, simply because provision has not been made for the two daughters. It is not something unusual for the persons having landed property in two villages. Moreover, it was for the testator and the court cannot sit to discard the will on these considerations. 29. The will, thus, cannot be held to be unnatural, simply because provision has not been made for the two daughters. It is not something unusual for the persons having landed property in two villages. Moreover, it was for the testator and the court cannot sit to discard the will on these considerations. 29. As I read the plaint, the plaintiff has made out his stand in para 3 of the plaint, wherein it is said that Sohan Singh deceased never executed any will in his life time nor he had any intention to make the same. It is further said that defendant No. 1 conspired with the scribe and the attesting witnesses to deprive the plaintiff and has made a forged and fabricated document after the death of Sohan Singh. 30. It is one thing to say that the will is in-valid, forged and it is quite another to say that the will cannot be accepted on account of suspicious circumstances, no suspicious circumstance has been pointed out in the suit rather the stand taken by the plaintiff in his suit is that the will was never executed and is forged having been prepared after the death of Sohan Singh. 31. It would, thus, follow that the case set-up by the plaintiff in his pleadings is totally different from what has been tried to be proved. 32. The learned first appellate court, therefore, certainly went wrong in giving too much importance to some circumstances as suspicious. 33. In my considered opinion, the judgment passed by the trial court was absolutely just and proper and should not have been interfered with by the learned first appellate court. 34. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate court is set aside and the one passed by the learned trial court is up-held. The suit is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.