JUDGMENT This appeal was admitted on 12-7-1994 on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the Courts below committed an error in law, while misreading and misinterpreting the documents Exts. D-1, PW-3/A to PW-3/C ? 2. Ex. D-1 is the Will dated 21-1-1981 executed by late Dhian Singh, s/o Polo in favour of the respondents-defendants, who are being referred to accordingly here in this judgment. Suit was initially filed by Mangal Singh, who was nephew (brothers son) of Dhan Singh. 3. In this behalf it may also be noted that Polo had three sons, Inder Singh, Dhian Singh and Uttam Singh, Dhian Singh and Uttam Singh died issueless as well as widowless. Uttam Singh executed Will of his property in favour of the sons of Mangal Singh, the original plaintiff. They are appellants No. 1 to 4 in the present appeal. Dhian Singh, as already noted, executed Will Ex. D-1 in favour of the defendants. 4. After filing of the suit record of the trial Court shows that Mangal Singh died and in his place appellants No. 1 to 4 being his sons, No. 5 being his widow and No. 6 being his daughter were added as plaintiffs. 5. At the time of hearing, it was not disputed that in the event of Will being not accepted, then on the basis of succession which opened on the death of Dhian Singh, suit property will go to the plaintiffs. 6. Ex. PW-3/A is the photostat copy of abstract from the loan register of the society; Ex. PW-3/B is the loan application of Dhian Singh filed with the society and Ex. PW-3/C is the surety bond of the said loan. In all these three documents, Dhian Singh has put his signatures. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in this appeal while challenging the findings of the Courts below submitted that deceased Dhian Singh used to sign in Urdu. His putting thumb impression on Ex. D-1 by itself creates suspicion regarding its genuineness. He further submits that participation by the beneficiaries, i.e. defendants in the process of execution of the will in question renders Ex. D-1 highly doubtful. His putting thumb impression on Ex. D-1 by itself creates suspicion regarding its genuineness. He further submits that participation by the beneficiaries, i.e. defendants in the process of execution of the will in question renders Ex. D-1 highly doubtful. In addition to this, he also submitted that presence of Sansar Chand is also not made out at the time of execution of the Will as his village is at a distance and there being no mention as to why Mangal Singh the natural heir is being excluded. Per Mr. Bhardwaj cumulative effect of all these factors is that the Will Ex. D-1 is not free from suspicion. As such both the Courts below have fallen into error in dismissing the suit of his clients. 8. All these pleas have been controverted by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants. According to him, findings recorded by both the Courts below are concurrent findings of fact, based on proper appreciation of evidence. Besides this, he urged that the grounds urged to declare the Will Ex. D-1 suspicious have no foundation either in law or on the proved facts. Thus per him judgment and decree under appeal deserves to be upheld. 9. With a view to properly appreciate the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties, a few facts need to be noted As already observed, Dhian Singh executed a Will of his immovable property in favour of the defendants Ex. D-1. This is a registered document with the Sub-Registrar, Una. Suit was filed for declaration by the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the land described in the heading of the plaint and the Will dated 21-1-1981 (Ex. D-1) was the result of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence practised upon by the deceased, who being an old man was intellectually weak, lacking sound disposing mind, ailing person, was not competent to make any Will or disposition of the property. Mutation entered on 27-3-1985 on the basis of the said forged Will though not finally sanctioned was also wrong, incorrect, illegal, void, inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction was prayed against the defendants from interfering in their possession by the plaintiffs. A decree in the alternative for joint possession was also prayed for. Mutation entered on 27-3-1985 on the basis of the said forged Will though not finally sanctioned was also wrong, incorrect, illegal, void, inoperative on the rights of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction was prayed against the defendants from interfering in their possession by the plaintiffs. A decree in the alternative for joint possession was also prayed for. Defendants when declined to admit the claim of the plaintiffs as also did not resist from interfering over the suit land has given cause of action to the plaintiffs to file the suit. 10. Defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs and by way of preliminary objection urged that suit was not maintainable as defendants have no cause of action. According to them plaintiffs had no cause of action to file this suit which was otherwise bad for non joinder of necessary parties as also it was not properly valued. On merits it was admitted that Dhian Singh was the owner of the suit property and he died issueless as well as widowless. But, it was asserted that he executed a valid Will in their favour and was living with them. They further stated that the deceased testator was being looked after by the defendants who performed his last rites and other obsequies. Defendants while denying the possession of the plaintiffs, specifically urged that they were in possession of the suit properly, as such there was no occasion for extending any threats, as alleged; thus they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 11. Trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Sh. Dhian Singh had executed a valid will in favour of the defendants as alleged ? OPD. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 7. Relief. 12. Suit was dismissed and thereafter when this dismissal was challenged in appeal, judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by means of impugned decree, hence this second appeal. 13. So far plea urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that Dhian used to sign, therefore, why he would put his thumb impression on the Will Ex. Relief. 12. Suit was dismissed and thereafter when this dismissal was challenged in appeal, judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld by means of impugned decree, hence this second appeal. 13. So far plea urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that Dhian used to sign, therefore, why he would put his thumb impression on the Will Ex. D-1 is concerned, it cannot be accepted. Because under S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the requirement was that the testator shall or affix his marks to the Will x x x x " 14. Besides this, there is another document Ex. DW-1/A. This is a Will wherein Dhian Singh deceased was one of the marginal witness. On it he had put his thumb impression. After having gone through the judgments of both the Courts below I do not find any reason to accept the plea urged in that behalf by Mr. H. K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and in any event this by itself does not make Ex. D-1 the Will in question suspicious when its execution has been duly proved, reference to materials in this behalf Will be made hereinafter. 15. In the face of this conclusion no benefit can be derived on behalf of the plaintiffs from the fact that because the deceased, Dhian Singh had singed PW-3/A to Ex. PW-3/C, therefore, it is a ground for holding the will Ex. D-1 to be either not proved or suspicious. 16. So far participation by beneficiaries while executing the will Ex. D-1 by the deceased is concerned, it may be noted in this behalf that it also does not improve the case of the plaintiffs. Reason being that someone has to come forth to accomplish the wish of the executant. Unless there are other attending circumstances to make the Will suspicious and not free from doubt, merely because defendants were present when the Will was executed will not make it doubtful muchless suspicious. 17. In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 1995 SC 1684, what was held and is relevant for the present case was as under :- "Somebody has to take necessary steps in such matters; but if he happens to be one close to the executor, some eyebrow is bound to rise. 17. In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by L.Rs. AIR 1995 SC 1684, what was held and is relevant for the present case was as under :- "Somebody has to take necessary steps in such matters; but if he happens to be one close to the executor, some eyebrow is bound to rise. Even so, if there be other circumstances on record to show the voluntary character of the document, the eyebrows should get dropped down." 18. After taking this view active participation by the close relations of the executor/beneficiary was not taken to be a suspicious circumstances. There is overwhelming reliable and trustworthy evidence to show that deceased not only executed the Will in question Ex. D-1 of his own free-will and volition without any influence from anyone, but was also living with the defendants, as such there was nothing unusual in his executing the Will in question and because of presence of the beneficiaries at the time of its execution. 19. In this context it may also be noted that when a Will is executed, that by itself shows that natural line of succession is being interfered with though a Will can always be executed in favour of a person upon whom succession has to otherwise devolve. In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the presence of the defendants being there at the time of execution of the Will in question. 20. Another reason not to accept this plea is that the Will in question has been registered on the day of execution. In case there were other suspicious and surrounding circumstances, registration may not have been of any consequence. But in view of what has been observed hereinabove, registration is further an additional circumstance so as to hold the same to be genuine. 21. Plea that there is no mention of natural heirs also cannot be accepted in the face of the evidence on record. Particularly the statements of Channan Singh as DW-1, Sansar Chand Nambardar as well as Himmat Singh DWs. Both these persons are attesting witnesses of the Will Ex.D-1. So far the Will having been scribed by Ganpat Rai, deed writer is concerned, it is clearly proved from the statement of DW Vijay Puri. He was well acquainted with the writing of the deceased, having learnt the work of deed writer as also having seen the deceased scribe writing documents. So far the Will having been scribed by Ganpat Rai, deed writer is concerned, it is clearly proved from the statement of DW Vijay Puri. He was well acquainted with the writing of the deceased, having learnt the work of deed writer as also having seen the deceased scribe writing documents. 22. So far plea of PW Sansar Chand being of different village is concerned, it also cannot be accepted. In Bisakhu v. Jaishi, 1971 Sim LJ 70, it was observed that simply because witnesses were not knowing the testator and they being related to the father of the beneficiary under the Will, by itself will not destroy the credibility of such a witness if it is otherwise made out that the Will in question had been duly executed. 23. In Smt. Uttami through Sh. M. L. Sethi and Sh. S. Malhotra v. Shri Ram Dass Etc. through Sh. A. C. Sud and K. D. Sud 1975 Sim LJ 201 (HP), a Division Bench of this Court observed that once it is established in the case of unnatural and officious Will that the testator was free and had a sound disposing mind, the Court cannot injunct its own ethics or what is or is not a moral or a fair disposition. That being so, the Court is not concerned with whether the Will is unnatural and causes hardship and cuts of wholly or in part the near relation of the testator. The Court has to give effect to the Will. 24. In Gurdial Singh v. Ratan Kaur AIR 1996 Punj and Har 265 it was held as under:- "It was then submitted on behalf of the appellant that the thumb impression of the deceased was obtained by the official of Sub-Registrar in a separate room and that the registration has been done in a perfunctory manner. This contention is not borne out from the statement of DW-2 Ajit Singh, who categorically denied that the thumb impression of the testator was obtained by the official sitting in some other room. The appellant has not examined any official of the Registration Department. The registration of the Will is a prima facie evidence to prove that the legal formalities for the due registration were duly completed by the Sub-Registrar. The appellant has not examined any official of the Registration Department. The registration of the Will is a prima facie evidence to prove that the legal formalities for the due registration were duly completed by the Sub-Registrar. Also it was argued that the deceased was an old man of 90 years and he could not execute the Will while in a sound disposing mind. The argument is again devoid of any merit. When the Will in favour of the plaintiff was executed by the deceased at that time the deceased was of 88 years. Not an iota of evidence has come on the record that within a span of two years, the deceased was so incapacitated that he could not execute any Will. Also it was argued that no intervening circumstances have been proved on the record by the propounder that the relations between the deceased and the plaintiff became hostile and by which actions of the plaintiff, the deceased was annoyed. The argument is again is devoid of any merit. The recitals in the Will (Ex.D-1) clearly suggest that on account of the vices of the plaintiff the deceased was not happy with him". 25. In this behalf reference can also be made to Gun Parkash v. Bhola Nath AIR 1997 Him Pra 27. 26. Similarly in Shakuntala Devi v. Savitri Devi, AIR 1997 Him Pra 43, while considering the execution of Will and recitals therein, it was held as under : "16. In the present case as well, simply due to the fact that the recital made in the Will that services were being rendered to the deceased testator Bansi Lal by the defendants and that no services were being rendered by the plaintiffs, having been found false, will not be a suspicious circumstance on the contents of that part of the Will by which the land in dispute was bequeathed in favour of the defendants." "25. The Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Sushila Devi v. Pandit Krishna Kumar Missir, AIR 1971 SC 2236, has held that prima facie, the circumstance that no bequest was made to the natural heir(s) by the testator would make the Will appear unnatural, but if the execution of the Will is satisfactorily proved, the fact that the testator had not bequeathed any property to one of his children cannot make the Will invalid." "27. The execution of the Will stands duly proved by DW.2 Kesav Ram, DW.3 Sher Singh and DW. 4, Amar Chand. All these witnesses are independent witnesses. There is nothing on record to show that they are having any interest in the legatees. Nor there is any evidence to show that they are in any way inimical towards the plaintiffs. No evidence has been led behalf of the plaintiffs to show that deceased Bansi Lal was not having a sound disposing mind at the relevant time." "28. Therefore, considering the entire evidence coming on the record in its totality, I hold that a valid Will Ext. D.1 was executed by deceased Bansi Lal in favour of the defendants, while in a sound disposing mind on 12-5-1980." 27. To similar effect is the decision of this Court in Girja Nand v. Uma Wati (R. S. A. No. 283 of 1997). decided on 6th August,1999. 28. In Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 : (AIR 2002 SC 637), it was observed that where evidence adduced in proof of execution of a Will is legal and convincing, satisfies the conscience of the Court and there is nothing unnatural about the transaction, mere conjecture or unfounded suspicion should not be permitted to sway the verdict. It also cannot be said that there is any error of law muchless serious error of law, ignoring the relevant and material piece of documentary evidence resulting in serious error of law so as to vitiate the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 29. In this behalf it may also be noted that there is no absolute prohibition against interference in an appropriate case by the High Court under S. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Supreme Court in the case of Madhukar D. Shende (AIR 2002 SC 637) supra, interfered after coming to the conclusion that the High Court was not justified in ignoring the circumstances of that case. 30. On the material on record I am satisfied that this is not a case where it can be said that any material evidence oral/documentary has been ignored. Similarly, it also cannot be said that any inadmissible evidence has been taken note of ; muchless the Will ex. D-1 has not been proved. 30. On the material on record I am satisfied that this is not a case where it can be said that any material evidence oral/documentary has been ignored. Similarly, it also cannot be said that any inadmissible evidence has been taken note of ; muchless the Will ex. D-1 has not been proved. Merely because this Court would come to a different conclusion on re-appraisal of the evidence by itself is no ground calling for interference in the present second appeal. Order accordingly.