JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—The appellant-defendant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur. 2. Brief facts are that respondent-plaintiff Bhagi Rath (hereinafter referred as the plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of one half share in land comprising khata khatauni No. 4/4, Khasra Nos. 212, 213, 222, 324, 326, 327, 328, 341, 344, 354, 398, 425, 437, 508, 547, 548, 550, 607, 608 and 824 Kita 20 measuring 46 Kanals 9 Marias, 5588/69120th share in land comprising khata khatauni No. 120/129, khasra No. 336 measuring 10 marlas, 3120/153600th share in land comprising khata khatauni No. 121/130 khasra No. 414 measuring 9 marlas, 27160/460800th share in the land comprising khata khatauni No. 122/131 khasra No. 244 measuring 10 kanals 14 marlas as specified in the jamabandi for the year 1980-81 situate in Tika Mohin, Tappa Bajuri, and the land comprising khata khatauni No. 97/199, khasra numbers 128, 295 measuring 423.42 sq. mts. and khata khatauni No. 98/200 previous khasra Nos. 244, 245, 315, 1251, 1252 and 1258 measuring 1652.78 sq. mts. as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 situate in Tika Up Mahal Baru, Mauza Bajuri, tehsil and District Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) on the basis of Will dated 27.4.1975 executed by the previous owner Smt. Shanti Devi in his favour and the defendant has got no right or title to the suit land and therefore, she be restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. 3. Case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that Smt. Shanti was the real Aunt (Tai) of the plaintiff and was residing with him and he used to maintain her and to provide her all amenities of life. She executed a valid Will on 27.4.1975 in favour of the plaintiff when she was of disposing mind. On the death of said Smt. Shanti Devi all her rites were performed by the plaintiff and the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. A litigation however regarding mutation of inheritance is pending before the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. On the death of said Smt. Shanti Devi all her rites were performed by the plaintiff and the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. A litigation however regarding mutation of inheritance is pending before the Financial Commissioner Himachal Pradesh. The defendant without any right is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and despite request of the plaintiff to acknowledge the Will and not interfere with the possession of the plaintiff the defendant started interfering in the possession. Hence, the suit. 4. The original defendant Smt. Kalan Devi, who is since dead and the present appellant being her legal representative has been brought on record, contested the claim of the plaintiff. In written statement two preliminary objections were raised, viz., that the suit in the present form is not maintainable because the plaintiff is out of possession and that the suit was time barred. On merits the claim of the plaintiff has been denied and it is specifically averred that the claim of the plaintiff that he served said Shanti Devi is false, the execution of the Will or any necessity to execute such a Will by the deceased has been denied and it has been claimed that the defendant Kalan Devi and her husband were rendering services to her and they performed her last rites. It is further averred that the Will is forged and collusive and is not valid and genuine. Plaintiff filed replication wherein the grounds of defence taken in the written statement were denied and the averments made in the plaint were reiterated. 5. The learned trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:— “1. Whether Shanti Devi executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiff on 27.4.75 qua suit land as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP. 2. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by time as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPP. 7. Relief." 6. Vide its judgment dated 17.8.1987 the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos. OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is correctly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction? OPP. 7. Relief." 6. Vide its judgment dated 17.8.1987 the trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos. 2 and 3 were decided against the defendant and accordingly decreed the suit. 7. Feeling aggrieved the defendant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court in the Court of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur and such appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence the present appeal. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 9. The appeal has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the findings of the Courts below are not vitiated because of the non-consideration of the relevant factors i.e. the suspicion arisen out of the purusal of the Will and the writing of the Will along with other circumstances of the case?" 10. It was contended for the appellant that the Will in question came into being in suspicious circumstances and most of such circumstances were not considered by the Courts below and some of such circumstances as considered by the first appellate Court have not been correctly appreciated alongwith other suspicious circumstances. 11. The suspicious circumstances on which the learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the Courts below are as follows: (i) Availability of Judicial paper in the village and contradictions as to from whom this paper was obtained to subscribe the Will thereon. (ii) Execution of the Will by Shanti Devi at a place other than the place of her residence while in the house of other person. (iii) The persons who took active part in bringing about the Will being close relations of the legatee and the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. (iv) Disinheritance of the only natural heir of the property of the testator. (v) The thumb-mark of the testator and the stamp used being in two different ink and the last lines of the Will having been squeezingly written as if the thumb-mark of the testator had been obtained earlier on a blank paper. (vi) The Will Ext. (iv) Disinheritance of the only natural heir of the property of the testator. (v) The thumb-mark of the testator and the stamp used being in two different ink and the last lines of the Will having been squeezingly written as if the thumb-mark of the testator had been obtained earlier on a blank paper. (vi) The Will Ext. P-1 as drafted could be prepared by a person knowing drafting, therefore, Punjab Singh (PW-3) could not have subscribed it in the manner it is written because he wrote a Will for the first time. (vii) The death of the testator after about 15 days of the execution of the Will. 12. Circumstance No. I When a document is to be subscribed the search for papers is not carried out when the process of subscribing a document is initiated. Preliminary arrangements like arranging papers, sending messages to the scribe/witnesses are the acts which invariably precedes the act of subscribing a document. Therefore, all the witnesses may not be in a position to give details of such minor and insignificant matters as to who brought the ink-pad, paper and from where. PW-3 Punjab Singh, scribe of the Will Ext. P-l, has stated that Judicial paper for subscribing the Will was given by Rattan Chand (now deceased) who was Lumbardar as also the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. A Judicial paper unlike a stamp paper is not required to be sold against name of the purchaser and for a specified purpose. Anyone can purchase Judicial papers to meet any future requirements. If such paper was available with a person who was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat and Lumbardar of the area concerned, there is nothing suspicious in his having supplied a Judicial paper for scribing the Will Ext. P-l. The contradictions in the statements of Punjab Singh (PW-3), Rulia Ram (PW-4) and Biru Ram (PW-5) as to from where the Judicial paper was obtained, are insignificant and of no use and consequence. It is more so in view of the fact that the Will Ext. P-l was executed on April 27, 1975 and the aforesaid witnesses had deposed about its execution in June 1986, that is more than eleven years after the date of execution. Human memory diminishes with the lapse of time and eleven years is a period long enough not to expect the witnesses to give accurate account of happenings. P-l was executed on April 27, 1975 and the aforesaid witnesses had deposed about its execution in June 1986, that is more than eleven years after the date of execution. Human memory diminishes with the lapse of time and eleven years is a period long enough not to expect the witnesses to give accurate account of happenings. The learned District Judge has thus rightly rejected this circumstance as a suspicious circumstance. 13. Circumstance No. II The Will Ext. P-l was admittedly executed by Shanti Devi when she had gone to the house of her niece Dano Devi in village Lahar. There is no legal impediment in executing a Will at any place and it is not necessary to execute Will at the house of testator. This circumstance, therefore, can also not be treated as a suspicious circumstance. 14. Circumstance No. Ill The contention for the appellant is that Rattan Singh who took active part in bringing about the Will Ext. P-l, was maternal uncle of the wife of the beneficiary under the Will, namely, Bhagi Rath, plaintiff and Punjab Singh (PW-3), the scribe is the brother of the brother-in-law of Bhagi Rath. Therefore, these near relations having brought about the Will Ext. P-l, it is rendered suspicious. 15. As already stated herein-above the Will Ext. P-l was executed on April 27, 1975. PW-1 Bhagi Rath, the legatee under the Will, has stated that he was married in the year 1978, i.e. after about three years of the execution of the Will Ext. P-l. Thus, Rattan Chand was not related to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the Will Ext. P-l, but their relationship came into being in the year 1978 when niece of Rattan Chand was married with the plaintiff. Thus, an unknown future event could not have any bearing on what had happened in the past. Rattan Chand, being the Lumbardar and Pradhan, thus, was a natural person who was asked to attest the execution of the Will. Punjab Singh is brother of Nand Lai who was husband of the sister of plaintiff. Said Nand Lai had died about 20 years before, and had been residing separately as stated by Punjab Singh and not controverted by any evidence on record. The marginal witnesses of the Will are not shown to be related to the plaintiff. One of them, namely, Biru Ram (PW-5) is a Chawkidar. Said Nand Lai had died about 20 years before, and had been residing separately as stated by Punjab Singh and not controverted by any evidence on record. The marginal witnesses of the Will are not shown to be related to the plaintiff. One of them, namely, Biru Ram (PW-5) is a Chawkidar. No testator can be expected to execute a Will with the help of strangers. To ensure that his last Will is given effect to some relations have as of precaution to be joined in the process of making a Will. Thus, joining a few relations alongwith non-relations in such process is quite natural and normal human conduct. 16. There are minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses about minor details, like as to from where the Judicial paper was obtained and from where the ink-pad(s) for thumb-marking the Will by the testator and stamping it by Rattan Chand was/were procured. As already stated hereinabove, with the passage of time human memory fades and after expiring a period of eleven years of the occurrence, it is not possible to narrate the events in exact sequence and details. 17. This circumstance in itself is, thus, not a suspicious circumstance which may lead to the conclusion that the Will Ext. P-l is not a validly and lawfully executed document. 18. Circumstance No. IV: Original defendant Kalan Devi, admittedly, was the only natural heir of Shanti Devi, the testator, being her daughter. She has not been given anything vide Will Ext. P-l. It is, therefore, urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that disinheriting the only natural heir is a grave suspicious circumstance rendering the due execution of Will Ext. P-l improbable and more so, in the absence of allegations that the relations between the testator - mother and the plaintiff - daughter were not cordial for any reason. To support this contention the learned Counsel has relied on Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and others, (AIR 1990 SC 1742) and Milkhi Ram and others v. Simro Devi, (1993 (1) Sim. LC 118). The learned District Judge had considered and examined these authorities and rightly came to the conclusion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and those involved in the above cases, these authorities were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case, 19. LC 118). The learned District Judge had considered and examined these authorities and rightly came to the conclusion that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and those involved in the above cases, these authorities were distinguishable and not applicable to the present case, 19. It may, however, be added here that while dealing with the question of disinheriting a natural heir by a Hindu by executing a Will, it has been commented vide para 368 at page 415 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla, XVI Edn. as follows: "Disinheritance.—There is nothing to prevent a Hindu from so disposing of his property by Will as to defeat the rights of his sons, wife, or other heirs even to the extent of completely disinheriting them(r). No express words are necessary to disinherit the heirs; it is sufficient if the property is bequeathed to some other person(s). 20. The above principle of Hindu Law is now embodied in Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act which reads as follows: "30. Testamentary succession.—Any Hindu may dispose of by Will or other testamentary disposition any property, which is capable of being so disposed of by him, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), or any other law for the time being in force and applicable to Hindus." 21. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act provides as follows: "59. Person capable of making Wills.—Every person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his property by Will. Explanation 1.—A married woman may dispose by Will of any property which she could alienate by her own act during1 her life. Explanation 2.—Persons who are deaf or dumb or blind are not thereby incapacitated for making a Will if they are able to know what they do by it. Explanation 3.—A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during an interval in which he is of sound mind. Explanation 4.—No person can make a Will while he is in such , a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing/ 22. Explanation 3.—A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during an interval in which he is of sound mind. Explanation 4.—No person can make a Will while he is in such , a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing/ 22. From a reading of the above position under the law, it is clear that the law does not require that the testator is under an obligation to give some share in his estate to the natural heir(s) and if nothing is given to such heir, he has to assign reasons for not doing so. In case of intestate succession all heirs will succeed to the property of the deceased as per the law governing such succession and all such heirs who are entitled to succeed will get their shares as per entitlement under the law. Therefore, if no heir is to be deprived of his share in the property as per the law of intestate succession, there is no need at all to execute a Will. A Will would come into being only where the testator will intend either to give more or lesser or no share to one or more or all the natural heirs. Therefore, the mere fact that one or more or all legal heirs have been disinherited by execution of a Will is not a suspicious circumstance. 23. While dealing with the question as to whether depriving a natural heir of any share in the property of the testator is a suspicious circumstance, the Honble Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and anotherv. Panchanan Barterjee, (1995) 4 SCC 459, held as under: "4. As to the first circumstance, we would observe that this should not raise any suspicion, because the whole idea behind execution of Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. So natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will, of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in others only partially. As in the present case, the two executors are sons of a half-blood brother of Saroj Bala, whereas the objectors descendants of a full blood sister, the disinheritance of latter could not have been taken as a suspicious circumstance, when some of her descendants are even beneficiaries under the Will." 24. As in the present case, the two executors are sons of a half-blood brother of Saroj Bala, whereas the objectors descendants of a full blood sister, the disinheritance of latter could not have been taken as a suspicious circumstance, when some of her descendants are even beneficiaries under the Will." 24. In view of the above position in law the mere circumstance that natural heir has been disinherited by the Will Ext. P-l is not a suspicious circumstance unless it is shown that the testator was not of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will or the Will was brought about by misrepresentation or fraud or it is a forgery. 25. Circumstance No. V A bare look at the Will Ext. P-1 makes it clear that the contents thereof are not written in a squeezing manner so as to ensure that all its contents in the body are adjusted above the thumb-mark of the testator. It prima facie appears to have been written in the normal course. It has not been suggested to PW-3 Punjab Singh, scriber of the Will that he had written the Will on a paper which was blank except that it bore the thumb-mark thereon. Thus, the ground that the Will Ext. P-l had been written on a paper which already had the thumb-mark and that it can be visualised by a mere look on the Will, appears to be an after thought. 26. The learned Counsel for the appellant has forcefully urged that there is difference of ink of the ink-pads used for taking thumb impressions of the testator on the Will Ext. P-l and the one used for stamping it with the stamp of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, namely, Rattan Chand. Though there appears to be some difference in the ink used as aforesaid, yet the impression of the stamp is so dim that Court should avoid forming its own opinion about the ink(s) used. Suffice say that the substance of the statements of material witnesses on this it comes to that two different pads were used for thumb marking the Will Ext. P-1 by testator Shanti Devi, and stamping it by Rattan Chand, Pradhan. Rattan Chand undoubtedly was the best person to explain this difference and circumstances leading thereto but he is dead and could not be examined. P-1 by testator Shanti Devi, and stamping it by Rattan Chand, Pradhan. Rattan Chand undoubtedly was the best person to explain this difference and circumstances leading thereto but he is dead and could not be examined. PW-3 Punjab Singh has stated that Pradhan had used his own pad for stamping the Will and Shanti had used a different pad to thumb-mark the Will and that such pad was brought from the Post Office. PW-4 Rulia Ram has also stated that to thumb-mark the Will by the testator, the pad was brought from the Post Office and she thumb-marked the Will by using such pad, and that the Pradhan had put his stamp but he was not in possession of pad at that time. PW-5 Biru Ram states that the pad was called from the Post Office as there was no ink in the pad. 27. The thumb-mark on the Will Ext. P-l prima facie appears to be in the ink as is usually used in the Post Offices to stamp the Dak. The stamp of Pradhan appears to be in the ink as is generally used in the pads used in Post Offices. The dim impression is indicative of the fact that there was no sufficient ink in the pad used for stamping the Will, hence the dim impression. In such a situation stamp pad having been called for from the Post Office, as emerges from the statements of these witnesses, satisfactorily explains the difference in the ink. Thus, this circumstance also cannot be said to be suspicious. 28. Circumstance No. VI. The Will Ext. P-l has been scribed by PW-3 Punjab Singh who had, admittedly, not subscribed any Will prior to the one in hand. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, thus, is that the Will which appears to have been drawn by a knowledgeable person was in fact drafted by someone else. The contention is farfetched and presumptive. PW-3 Punjab Singh is an aged person and read upto 6th standard in good old days. It is not suggested to him that he knows nothing about writing/scribing such documents which are often required to be scribed in the villages. Writing a first deed by a person does not mean that he has no knowledge about drafting of such deeds. This circumstance, therefore,is not worth being taken into account for any purpose. 29. Circumstance No. VII. It is not suggested to him that he knows nothing about writing/scribing such documents which are often required to be scribed in the villages. Writing a first deed by a person does not mean that he has no knowledge about drafting of such deeds. This circumstance, therefore,is not worth being taken into account for any purpose. 29. Circumstance No. VII. The Will Ext. P-l was executed on April 27, 1975. The testator died on May 16, 1975, i.e. after about 19 days of the execution of the Will. However, this also cannot in itself render the execution of the Will Ext. P-l suspicious or doubtful unless the death has some nexus with the execution of the Will or the death was as a result of long standing serious ailment rendering Shanti Devi incapable of understanding her interest which is not the case here. 30. There is evidence on record to prove that the testator at the time of execution of the Will was of sound disposing mind. At the time of execution of the Will the legatee - plaintiff was not present and was at Dharamshala. He is nephew of the testator Shanti Devi. They are, admittedly co-sharers of the suit property. In view of the evidence led by the plaintiff, playing of any deception or making of any mis-representation or the Will having been forged, are ruled out in this case. There are findings of the two Courts below that the Will Ext. P-l is a valid Will. The suspicious circumstances relied upon to hold the Will Ext. P-l invalid are in isolation or collectively incapable of being held such suspicious circumstances which may render the execution of the Will Ext. P-l as invalid. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1987 passed by the learned Sub-Judge and affirmed by the learned District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. 31. As a result, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.