V. K. AGARWAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1994 in Civil Suit No. 19-A/ 1989 by III Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the suit claiming declaration, possession and damages has been decreed. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTABLY. Chandan Bai was the widow of Chandulal. The appellant/defendant no. 1 Ravi Shanker is the nephew of Chandan bai, being the son of Lakhanlal who was the brother of Chandan Bai's husband, Chandulal. Chandulal died in the year 1952. It is also now not in dispute in this appeal that after the death of her husband, there was a partition between chandan Bal and defendant No. 11 appellant ravishankar. in which Chandan Bai received 4. 83 acres of land, situate at village Semarsal, tahsil Mangeli, District Bilaspur, detailed in schedule to the plaint, which included land bearing Khasra No. 163/8. area 1. 73 acres. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff/respondent No. 1 rajendra Kumar Dubey's case, stated in brief. was that after the partition, Chandan Bai used to manage and cultivate the land which was allotted in her share. However, when father of defendant No. 1 started troubling her, Chandan bai went to her parents' place at village Karar in the year 1982-83. She lived at village Karar till her death. Chandan Bai executed a Will in favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1 Rajendra kumar bequeathing her property, in his favour. The said Will was also got registered by chandan Bai, After the death of Chandan Bai in May, 1988, the plaintiff/respondent. No/1 became the owner of the suit-property by virtue of the said registered Will executed by chandan Bai. The defendant No. 11 appellant dispossessed Chandan Bai from the suitland from June. 1983 and had taken possession of her land. The defendant/appellant No. 1 illegally and unauthorisedly executed sale-deed of the said land bearing Khasra No. 163/ 8. area 1. 73 acre in favour of appellant/defendant no. 2 Rajendra Kumar Pandey in February. 1984. However, since the property did not belong to appellant No. 1 Ravi Shanker, the appellant No. 2 Rajendra Kumar Pandey did not get any title over the said land on the basis of the said sale- deed. Therefore, the respondent no. 11 plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit-property and also claimed damages, against the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the respondent no. 11 plaintiff prayed for the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit-property and also claimed damages, against the appellants/defendants. ( 4 ) THE appellants/defendants resisted the suit of the plaintiff According to them, the will executed by Chandan Bai is a forgery. It was also averred that the Will was got executed taking advantage of the ignorance of Chandan bai and by exerting undue pressure oh her. It was, therefore, averred that the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit-property on the basis of the said Will. It was also averred that on the death of Chandan Bai, defendant no. 1, appellant No. 1 succeeded to her property. He was competent to transfer suit-land bearing Khasra No. 163/8 to defendant/appellant no 2. The defendants/appellants, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Court held in the impugned-judgment that the registered Will dated 25. 6. 1979 (Ex, P-l) executed by Chandan Bai was duly proved. It was executed by Chandan bai of her own free Will and she bequeathed her property to her nephew, plaintiff/respondent no. 1 Rajendra Kumar Dubey. Therefore, the defendant No. 1. Ravishanker did not get any right or title over the suit-property after her death and had no authority to transfer the suit-land to defendant No. 2/appellant No. 2 rajendra Kumar Pandey. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 Rajendra kumar Dubey was decreed. ( 6 ) IN this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellants has urged that the Will propounded by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 rajendra Kumar Dubey. which is marked as ex. P/l-C has not been duly proved as per the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the indian Evidence Act. It has been submitted in the above context that the learned lower Court has not taken into consideration the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of will. It has been submitted in the above context that though the Will was drafted and written by Advocate Jaiswal and was typed by one typist Thakur. but neither of the said witnesses, i. e. Advocate Jaiswal or Typist Thakur has been examined in the case by the plaintiff to prove the execution of the said Will. It has been submitted in the above context that though the Will was drafted and written by Advocate Jaiswal and was typed by one typist Thakur. but neither of the said witnesses, i. e. Advocate Jaiswal or Typist Thakur has been examined in the case by the plaintiff to prove the execution of the said Will. It has also been urged that according to the normal rule of succession, her successor the defendant No. 1/ appellant,no. 1, being the son of the brother of Chandan Bai's husband has not been given any property by her, and thus normal rule of succession was not followed. It was also contended that the Will was found in the Box of plaintiff/respondent No. 1. His statement that he was not knowing about the existence till then is unnatural. Therefore, it has been submitted that in view of the circumstances, as above, the genuineness of Will becomes doubtful. Moreover, the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, has failed to satisfactorily prove the Will. Therefore, the learned lower Court erred in placing reliance on the Will of Chandan Bai and in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. ( 7 ) AS against this, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. I/plaintiff has urged that the Will (Ex. P-l) was a genuine document. It was also got registered by Chandan bai herself. It was executed in the presence of attesting witnesses, who have been examined in the trial Court by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and they have, by their evidence, duly proved the same. It was submitted that deceased Chandan Bai had started residing with the plaintiff and his father and, therefore, was naturally inclined to bequeath her property in favour of the plaintiff, who is her brother's son. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court holding the Will to be genuine and duly proved is fully justified and does not call for any interference. ( 8 ) IN view of the above contentions, the main question that requires consideration is as to whether the Will (Ex. P-l) is a genuine document executed by Chandan Bai and that the said Will fulfils all the requirements of law and has been duly proved by its propounder, i. e. the plain tiff/respondent No. 1? ( 9 ) SECTION 63 of the Indian Succession act, 1925, lays down the requirements for execution of a Will. P-l) is a genuine document executed by Chandan Bai and that the said Will fulfils all the requirements of law and has been duly proved by its propounder, i. e. the plain tiff/respondent No. 1? ( 9 ) SECTION 63 of the Indian Succession act, 1925, lays down the requirements for execution of a Will. The section reads as below:"63: Execution of unprivileged Wills.-Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed of engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules : (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed, that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writings as a Will; (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person ; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary;" ( 10 ) THEREFORE, according to this provision, for the due execution of the Will, (i) the testator shall sign and affix his mark to the will ; (ii) signature and mark of the testator shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will ; (iii) the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses; and (iv) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will and each of them should have signed the Will in the presence of the testator. ( 11 ) THE attestation of the Will as above is not an empty formality. ( 11 ) THE attestation of the Will as above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying to the signature of the executant. The attesting witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It may further be noted that according to Section 63 of the Indian Succession act, it is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. ( 12 ) SINCE Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in Section 68 of the Indian evidence Act, which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving execution of such a document. Therefore, if the attesting witness is alive, and is subject to the process of Court and is capable of giving evidence; yet if he is not examined, the Will cannot be used in evidence. ( 13 ) THUS, the combined reading of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would indicate that a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided there in and that the propounder thereof should examine atleast one attesting witness to prove the Will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the Will, but also that each of the witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testator. ( 14 ) IN H. Venkatachala lyengarv. B. N. Thimmajamma and Others, it has been laid down that the party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will has to discharge the burden to prove its execution in accordance with law. It has been observed that unlike other documents, the Will speaks from the death of the testator and so when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his Will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the departed testator. The propounder would he called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will. ( 15 ) IN Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt singh, it has been laid down that in order to prove the due attestation of the Will, the propounder of the Will has to prove that the two attesting witnesses saw the testator sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator Similar proposition find place in IIIyas and Others v. Badshah alias Kamla, and T. Venkat Sitaram Rao and another v. T. Kamakshiamma and Others ( 16 ) NOW in the backdrop of the above legal position regarding the execution and proof of Will, the evidence in the case may be briefly adverted to. It may be noticed that Will (Ex. P/l-C) has been attested by witnesses ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2) and Onkar prasad Tiwari (PW-3), both of whom have been examined by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. ( 17 ) GANGA Prasad Sharma (PW-2) is a relative of Chandan Bai. He states that he had come to Court at Mungeli, where he met chandan Bai. He asked Chandan Bai, the purpose of her visit to the Court, upon which he was informed by her that she had come to execute a Will in favour of plaintiff Rajendra kumar Dubey, Ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2)further states that Chandan Bai thereafter instructed advocate Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. who got the Will drafted. The Will was accordingly drafted and typed in the presence of Chandan bai. It was then read over to Chandan Bai. They thereafter went to the Registrar's Office, where Chandan Bai again expressed her intention to execute Will of her property in favour of plaintiff Rajendra Kumar Dubey. She put the thumb impression before the Registrar, ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2) also states that he was present at lime Chandan Bai put her thumb impression to the Will. He also states that as well as Onkar Prasad Tiwari (PW-3), the other attesting witness, also put their signatures on the Will in the presence of Chandanbai. She put the thumb impression before the Registrar, ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2) also states that he was present at lime Chandan Bai put her thumb impression to the Will. He also states that as well as Onkar Prasad Tiwari (PW-3), the other attesting witness, also put their signatures on the Will in the presence of Chandanbai. ( 18 ) ONKAR Prasad Tiwari (PW-3), the other attesting witness, has also given a similar statement. He states that he had gone along with chandan Bai to Mungeli. The Will was drafted on the instructions of Chandan Bai by Advocate sanjay Kumar Jaiswal and that it was typed by Typist Thakur. It was then read over to chandan Bai in the presence of witnesses. Chandan Bai accepted the correctness of the contents of the Will. Thereafter, Chandan Bai put her thumb-impression on the same in their presence and that they had also put their signature on the same as attesting witnesses. ( 19 ) THE statements of above attesting witnesses- Ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2) and onkar Prasad Tiwari (PW-3) would clearly indicate that the Will (Ex. P/l) was drafted by advocate Jaiswal, as per instructions of the testator, Chandan Bai. It was typed by Typist thakur. it was thereafter read over to Chandan bai, who felt satisfied and accepted the correctness of the contents there of. Thereafter, chandan Bai had put her thumb-impression on the said Will and the above witnesses had signed the same as attesting witnesses in her presence. There appears to be no shortcoming in the above statements. The Will was also got registered by the Registrar. In the circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the Will was duly executed by Chandan Bai of her own free will and it was duly proved by the statements of both the attesting witnesses. ( 20 ) FROM the above evidence on record, it is clear that Chandan Bai was in a fit mental state and, in fact, had gone to Court at Mungeli with an avowed object of executing a Will, which she. actually did. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that chandan Bai was not in a fit condition to execute the Will because she was very old and aged about 75-76 years. However, the contention as above cannot be accepted. actually did. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that chandan Bai was not in a fit condition to execute the Will because she was very old and aged about 75-76 years. However, the contention as above cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that she was unable to understand the nature of disposition and the contents of the Will. On the contrary there is categorical statement of the above witnesses Ganga Prasad Sharma (PW-2) and onkar Prasad Tiwari (PW-3) that after getting the Will drafted, as per her instruction and after understanding the nature and contents of the said document, she had put her thumb impression thereon and got the same registered. Therefore, it is clear on close scrutiny of evidence that the Will (Ex. P-l) was duly executed by deceased Chandan Bai of her own free Will. It has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses. ( 21 ) REGARDING the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that chandan Bai did not bequeath any property in favour of her nephew, the appellant No. 1, it may be noted that the relations between chandan Bai and appellant No. 1 were strained. In fact, Chandan Bai had protested against the forged sale-deed by appellant No. 1 purportedly executed by the former in his favour. Further, as stated by the plaintiff rajendra Kumar Dubey (PW-1), Chandan Bai, on account of harassment meted out to her by appellant No, 1, had left her matrimonial home and had come to him and his father at village Karar in the year 1983, where she resided till her life time. In the above circumstances, it was only natural that Chandan Bai did not leave any of her property for the appellant no, 1. Therefore, merely because chandan Bai, by her Will, did not bequeath any property in favour of appellant, would not create any doubt in the foregoing circumstances regarding the genuineness of the Will executed by her. Therefore, above submission of Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Therefore, merely because chandan Bai, by her Will, did not bequeath any property in favour of appellant, would not create any doubt in the foregoing circumstances regarding the genuineness of the Will executed by her. Therefore, above submission of Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. ( 22 ) IT was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statement of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that Chandan bai told him that her Will was kept in her box and that he was not aware as to whether her aunt, i. e. Chandan Bai had got his name recorded on the suit-property, is unnatural and creates suspicion about the genuineness of the will. However, it appears from evidence on record that on the basis of the Will, the name of the respondent No. I/plaintiff was already mutated and the defendant No. I/appellant no. 1 had also objected to such mutation. Therefore, above statement of plaintiff respondent No. 1 regarding the Will does not appear to be unnatural and does not create any suspicion about the said document (Ex. P-1) as has been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellants. ( 23 ) IT was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff/ respondent No 1 should have examined. Advocate Jaiswal and Typist Thakur, who drafted and typed the Will respectively, and that their non-examination would create suspicion about the execution of Will (Ex. P-l) by Chandan Bai and due to their non-examination, adverse inference should be drawn against the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1, the propounderof the Will. However, as noticed earlier, since the attesting witnesses of the Will (Ex. P-l) have been examined by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and thus execution of Will by Chandan Bai is duly proved as per requirement of law; it was not necessary to examine Advocate Jaiswal or typist as has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellants. The evidence and its reliability has to be weighed, assessed and adjudged on the basis of its quality and not on its quantity or the number of witnesses examined. ( 24 ) CLEARLY, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has satisfactorily discharged his onus of proving the Will and has dispelled and doubt regarding the circumstances regarding the execution of the Will by Chandan Bai. ( 24 ) CLEARLY, therefore, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has satisfactorily discharged his onus of proving the Will and has dispelled and doubt regarding the circumstances regarding the execution of the Will by Chandan Bai. ( 25 ) IN Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and others, it has been observed as below : the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63, Succession act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally except that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. Similar proposition of law has been laid down in Smt. Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chanda Bose and another ( 26 ) ACCORDINGLY, the scrutiny of evidence led by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, regarding will (Ex, P-l) executed by Chandan Bai, on the touchstone of legal requirement for proof of due execution of Will as mentioned earlier, reveals that it is established that chandan Bai had voluntarily and willfully executed the. same in the presence of attesting witnesses. same in the presence of attesting witnesses. Therefore, the Courts below rightly placed reliance thereon and held that Chandan bai had duly bequeathed her property In favour of plaintiff/respondent No. 1. He, therefore, acquired right over the suit property. Consequently, the defendant No. 1 could not claim or get any right of inheritance in the property of Chandan Bai as she did not die intestate. Consequently, since appellant No. 1 had no title over the property of Chandan Bai; part of it, i. e. , Khasra No. 163/8 area 1. 73 acres could not be sold by him in favour of appellant no. 2. Therefore, the appellant No. 2 does not get any title over the said land by virtue of the sale-deed executed by appellant No. 1. ( 27 ) THE findings as above by the learned trial Court are fully justified. The same does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, 'the suit of the plain tiff/respondent. No. 1 was rightly decreed by the learned trial court. There appears to be no infirmity in the impugned-judgment and decree. ( 28 ) THE appeal is, therefore, held to be devoid of substance and is dismissed. The appellants shall bear their own costs of this appeal and shall pay that of the plaintiff/ respondent No. l. Counsel's fee, Rs. 1,000/-, if certified. Appeal dismissed. .