JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.: The plaintiff -appellants have come up in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below dismissing their suit. The suit was initially dismissed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Chamba, vide judgment and decree dated 26.6.1991 and the appeal filed by them met with the same fate in the Court of the learned District Judge, Chamba, vide judgment and decree dated 23.6.1992. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs- appellants for declaration and possession on the pleadings that the suit land, fully described in the plaint, was owned and possessed by one Raghu-father of the plaintiff No. 1 Sita Devi, the proform a defendant No.3 Maina and the husband of plaintiff No.2 Nichanu. He had died one year prior to the filing of the suit leaving behind his legal representatives i.e. both the plaintiffs and the defendant No.3 as his legal heirs. The case of the plaintiffs-appellants was that the defendant No.2 Kablu, a complete stranger, in connivance with the father of the defendant No.l Jai Dayal forged and fabricated a will alleged to have been executed by Raghu deceased in favour of the defendant No. l. Mutation was got attested wrongly on 21.1.1988 which is not binding on the plaintiffs-appellants having been attested on the basis of fictitious will as the deceased Raghu was not competent to execute the will in favour of the defendant No. l since he was not capable enough as he used to remain ill. It was also pleaded that the suit land being ancestral no will could be execute-5 regarding the same. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants No. l and 2 in their written statement took up a plea that the defendant No. 2 is the widow of deceased Raghu and she along with her husband Raghu had executed a joint will which was legal and valid in favour of the defendant No. l as both the executants were in sound disposing mind and were competent to do so. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. l is the adopted son of deceased Raghu and that the defendant No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. It was denied that the plaintiff No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. In her written statement, the defendant No. 3 pleaded hat the will was legal and thus valid. 4. It was further pleaded that the defendant No. l is the adopted son of deceased Raghu and that the defendant No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. It was denied that the plaintiff No.2 is the widow of deceased Raghu. In her written statement, the defendant No. 3 pleaded hat the will was legal and thus valid. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1-A). Whether the suit property is ancestral as alleged, if so, its effect on suit of plaintiff as alleged? O.P.P. (1) Whether mutation No. 255, dated 29.1.1988, executed in favour of defendant No. l is wrong, illegal and not binding upon the rights of plaintiffs a alleged ? O.P.P. (2) Whether deceased Raghu had executed a valid will in favour of defendants as alleged O.P.D.-1& 2. (3) Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? O.P.D. -1&2. (4) Relief. 5. All the issues were decided against the plaintiffs resulting in their suit being dismissed. Their appeal also having met with the same fate, has given rise to the present second appeal. 6. I have heard Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiffs - appellants and Ms. Rama Mehta, learned counsel for the defendants - respondents and I have also examined the record. 7. The fate of the case hinges on the will itself which is Ex.D-2 on j record. The findings of the Courts below regarding the validity of this will is that the execution of the same has been proved by production of the scribe Birju DW-2 who is the Pradhan of the Panchayat. He has stated that both Raghu and Kablu had jointly executed the will and he had scribed it at their instance and the same had been read over to them and thereafter Raghu and Kablu thumb marked on it admitting the contents of the same and then it was signed by the witnesses, namely, Chandermani, Punnu and Chand. DW-3 Sin Chand is one of the marginal witnesses of the said will. He has deposed that the will was written by Birju Pradhan and it was thumb marked by Raghu and Kablu after it was read over to them. Then this witness, Punnu and Chandermani signed the will and Raghu testator was in sound disposing mind at that time. DW-3 Sin Chand is one of the marginal witnesses of the said will. He has deposed that the will was written by Birju Pradhan and it was thumb marked by Raghu and Kablu after it was read over to them. Then this witness, Punnu and Chandermani signed the will and Raghu testator was in sound disposing mind at that time. DW-1 Jai Dayal deposed that he gave his son i.e. defendant No.l in adoption to deceased Raghu. DW-3/1 Main proform a defendant No. 3 stated that her father Raghu was is sound disposing mind and the defendant No.l is her brother. 8 On the basis of the above evidence led by the defendants, both the lower Courts below have come to the conclusion that the will is legal and valid and cannot be questioned which has resulted in dismissal of the suit. 9. However, a perusal of the content;, of the will give rise to a number of posers. The first one is that there no recital whatsoever in the will as to the reason why the widow Nichanu plaintiff No. 2 and the daughter Sita Devi plaintiff No. 1 are being excluded from the suit land, by its owner Raghu. Secondly, it is a joint will executed by Raghu and Kablu as Kablu is projected as his wife, although the plaintiffs are disputing her status as such, which is also germane to the appeal in hand It is a very rare instance that two testators would jointly execute a will in favour of the beneficiaries who is the defendant No. 1 Jarmo in this case. Moreover, as forcefully argued by Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants Kablu though not proved to be a widow of Raghu, had no property of her own which she could will away in favour of the defendant No.l Jarmo. Indeed, there is no description of the property allegedly owned by her which she could give by way of the impugned will. All that is mentioned here in the will Ex.D-2 is that of her own free will and being of a sound disposing mind, she has bequeathed her share in the moveable and immoveable property. No description of the property allegedly owned by her or falling in her share is recited in die will. All that is mentioned here in the will Ex.D-2 is that of her own free will and being of a sound disposing mind, she has bequeathed her share in the moveable and immoveable property. No description of the property allegedly owned by her or falling in her share is recited in die will. Both the Courts below have completely side stepped these two important circumstances in coming to the conclusion that the execution of the will as well as its validity duty stand proved on record. They have gone merely by the fact that the execution of the will stands proved by the deposition of the scribe and one of the attesting witnesses, already discussed above. 10. In this behalf, the learned lower appellate Court has noted the suspicious circumstances of disinheriting of his daughter Sita Devi by the testator Raghu, but has brushed it aside by holding that it is not sufficient to show that the will is suspicious in nature. This approach of the learned lower appellate Court is to say the least, absolutely untenable. 11. Ms. Rama Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent -defendants has not been able to show as to why there is no recital in the impugned will to justify exclusion of the plaintiffs Sita Devi and Nichnu, being the daughter and widow of Raghu testator, from the property alleged to have been will to Jarmo defendant No. 1 by Reghu and Kablu jointly. She has further not been able to show any justification as to why the will was jointly executed by Raghu and Kablu, when the latter had no property which she could bequeath to the defend am. No.l by way of impugned will, as there is no description of any such property or her share therein. There two circumstances are sufficient to demolish the stand of the defendants -respondents that the will is a genuine document and since its execution has been duly proved, the same is legally valid. 12. Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur in support of his forceful submission to die effect that the execution of the impugned will Ex.D-2 is surrounded by suspicious circumstance, has relied on certain rulings. 12. Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur in support of his forceful submission to die effect that the execution of the impugned will Ex.D-2 is surrounded by suspicious circumstance, has relied on certain rulings. In Ramchandra Ram-bux v. Champabai Ors (AIR 1965 Supreme Court 354), it has been held that in all cases in which a will is prepared under circumstances which arose the suspicion of the Court that it does not express the mind of the testator, or that it was prepared under highly suspicious circumstances, it is for the propounded of the will to remove, that suspicion This observation fully applies to the present case as the defendants- respondents, being the propounders of the impugned will, have not been able to explain why the wife and the daughter of Raghu i.e. the plaintiffs have been excluded from inheritance and why the joint will was executed along with Kablu who had no property which she could will away. 13. Shri Naresh Kumar Thakur has then cited Baru Ram & Ors. v. Smt. Kishani Devi (1992(1) Sim. L.C. 115). The observation in this authority also helps the case of the plaintiffs -appellants. 14. Lastly, he has cited the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur etc. (1977 Current Law Journal (Civil) (SC) 237). It has been held by the Apex Court therein that it is the duty of the party setting up such a will which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances to offer a cogent and convincing explanation about the same. 15. In the present case, since the defendants-respondents have not been able to explain the above two suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the impugned will Ex.D-2, the same cannot be deemed as a legally valid will. 16. In view of the fact that this Court has come to the conclusion that the impugned will Ex.D-2 being surrounded by suspicious circumstances is not a legally valid document, it is not necessary to go into the other questions i.e. whether the suit land is ancestral or not etc. 17. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of bom the Courts below are set-aside and the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants is decreed with costs. Counsel fee is quantified at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed. -