JUDGMENT P.K. PALLI, J.—Suit filed by Sohan Lal plaintiff seeking declaration that the suit land is owned and possessed by him as successor after the death of his father Jaishi Ram and Will alleged to have been executed by his father dated 12.11.1979 is forged and fictitious and further claiming consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and in the alternative a suit for possession was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendant Des Raj stands allowed and the plaintiff is in second appeal. The plaintiff has died and the appeal is being prosecuted by his legal representatives Parties hereinafter in this judgment shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, contends that the first appellate Court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in respect of the Will and wrong inferences has been drawn which are not supported by facts proved on record. It is further stated that there was no reason given in the Will for depriving the natural heirs to succeed to the property and the Will is further shrouded by suspicious circumstances and beneficiary had taken a leading role in getting the Will executed in his favour. Learned Counsel had taken me through the statements of the marginal witnesses of the Will as well as through contents of the Will in support of his arguments. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, Mr. Y.S. Thakur, in reply has adopted the same reasoning as are projected by the first appellate Court in the impugned judgment. It is further being argued that the deceased was living with the defendant and his family and was being looked after and cared for by them and the plaintiff, though being his son had never cared to attend his father and for that reasons he was deprived of the suit property. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties at length and on careful examination of the impugned judgment and record, I find that the appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. There cannot be two opinions that it is for the propounder of the Will to place on record sufficient proof about the due execution of the Will and its validity and further to remove all suspicions surrounding the Will. The Will Ex. There cannot be two opinions that it is for the propounder of the Will to place on record sufficient proof about the due execution of the Will and its validity and further to remove all suspicions surrounding the Will. The Will Ex. D-11 is dated 12th November, 1979 and Jaishi Ram executant died on 23rd January, 1981, that is, after about 14 months. Nothing has come on record that the deceased was mentally feeble and bedridden. There is further no evidence to suggest that the Will was got executed by the defendant by exercising any undue influence, fraud or coercion. 5. It has further come in evidence that the deceased lived in the ancestral house with the father of the defendant and his family who looked after him and rendered services including food and clothing. Even the witness examined by the plaintiff as PW-4 supports this fact. It is true that in the body of the Will the executor has mentioned that he has neither any son nor any daughter and that his wife has already died. 6. Mr. Gupta is at pains to contend that despite the fact there was a son and daughter and her children, ironically no mention was made in this respect and one of the marginal witnesses had admitted the plaintiff to be the son of the deceased. It is sought to be urged that the Will should not be accepted. 7. I have carefully gone through the statements of the marginal witnesses examined as (DW-2) Sohan Ram and (DW-3) Badri Ram. The scribe is dead and his son has appeared as a formal witness. Though, there are minor discrepancies in the statements of the marginal witnesses, but these cannot be given any importance in view of the fact that the Will was executed way back in the year 1979 and the statements of these witnesses were recorded nine years thereafter that is in the year 1987. Due to this long span some discrepancies are bound to occur and unless something important and vital is missing in their statements, these have to be accepted in proof of the Will and holding it to be a valid document. 8. Due to this long span some discrepancies are bound to occur and unless something important and vital is missing in their statements, these have to be accepted in proof of the Will and holding it to be a valid document. 8. Another important fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the son of the defendant that is the plaintiff who was running a cycle repair shop at Ludhiana and the father being a widower was left with the defendant and his family in the ancestral house to be looked after by them. No piece of evidence has been brought on record as to whether the deceased was ever brought by the plaintiff to Ludhiana for being looked after or the plaintiff stayed there with him to render the necessary services to his old father. 9. The deceased at the time of the execution of the Will was 75 years of age and died at the age of 77 years. The defendant has placed on record money order receipts Exs. D-1 to D-8 to show that he was regularly sending money to the deceased for his necessary expenses. These money order receipts relate back to the year 1970 to 1978. 10. There no rebuttal to the witnesses examined from the side of the defendant that it was the defendant and his family who rendered services to the deceased, it appears to me that the deceased though was having a son was completely unhappy with him inasmuch as he went on to say in the Will that he has neither any son nor any daughter. 11. It is not something funny that natural heirs are deprived by the testator in the Will, It is the intention of the testator that has to be respected as he is no more on this earth to depose as to what prompted him to select or choose a person to confer a favour upon him depriving the natural heirs from succeeding to his property. Unless the Will is found to be a suspicious document or is found to have been executed in a clandestine manner, it should always be accepted by courts of law. The defendant is not a stranger to the family. He happens to be the real brothers son of the deceased. 12. Unless the Will is found to be a suspicious document or is found to have been executed in a clandestine manner, it should always be accepted by courts of law. The defendant is not a stranger to the family. He happens to be the real brothers son of the deceased. 12. When the natural heirs do not care to look after their old, aged and infirm parents and some-one nearer in the family renders them the desired services the one to whom these services are rendered out of his free will gives to them his property and in the situation natural heirs stand deprived of. In the given situation, the plaintiff has to blame only himself. 13. The impugned judgment, thus, appears to be absolutely just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court. The appeal is, consequently, ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs; Appeal dismissed.-