JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.:—Heard learned Counsel and with his assistance records of both the courts below have also been examined. 2. A suit was filed by the present appellant against the respondents claiming that the will Ex. D-l purported to have been executed by the father of the parties to this appeal is not binding on him so far the tenancy land was concerned. And thus liable to be so declared and set aside. And this land further needs to be equally shared by all the three brothers who are parties to this case. 3. Before proceeding further with this case, it may be appropriate to notice that so far the aforesaid will Ex. D-l is concerned, appellant is also one of the beneficiaries thereunder qua the land which is ancestral in nature. 4. Both the courts below after consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence have concurrently held as a question of fact that will Ex. D-l stands duly proved in accordance with law, particularly Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. In this behalf it may also be noted that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act is in the following terms:— "63. Execution of unprivileged wills.—Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed or engaged], or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:— (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his marks 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 writing as a will. (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 writing 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 acknowledgment 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" Similarly, Section 68 deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. 5. Will Ex. D-l is attested by two witnesses, namely DW-2 and DW-3. While challenging their statements, learned Counsel was at pains to point out that DW-2 was a chance witness as he has stated that he was in Tehsil at that time. Whereas DW-3 has stated that he alongwith DW-2 had accompanied the executant of will from the residence. This, according to Mr. Sharma, is a material contradiction which calls for admission of this appeal. Mr. Sharma further stated that why his client has been excluded from tenancy land is not spelt out from Ex. D-l. He further pointed out that beneficiary took interest in execution of the will by their deceased father. Per him these are all substantial questions of law on which appeal needs to be admitted. 6. After having heard learned Counsel as also after having gone through the statements of DWs 2 and 3, the marginal witnesses of the will Ex. D-l, I am satisfied that it has been proved in accordance with law and no exception can be taken to the findings recorded in that behalf. 7. So far participation by the beneficiary is concerned, suffice it to say that if there is other evidence (as in the present case), to hold that the will in question has been proved as per law, then it is no ground to set aside such a will. 7. So far participation by the beneficiary is concerned, suffice it to say that if there is other evidence (as in the present case), to hold that the will in question has been proved as per law, then it is no ground to set aside such a will. This matter need not detain the disposal of this appeal in view of the decisions of this court in Gun Parkash and another v. Bhola Nath, AIR 1997 H.P. 27; Teerath Singh v. Sajjan Singh (died) through his LRs, 1998 (1) SLJ 232 and Smt. Leela alias Bali Devi v. Smt. Drumti Devi, AIR 2002 H.P. 7. 8. Similar is the position regarding non-mention of other heirs in the will as well as regarding their exclusion is again no ground to upset the will. As such both these pleas are hereby rejected. (See Ravinder Nath Mukherjee and another v. Panchan Bannerjee (dead) by LRs and others, (1995) 4 SCC 459. 9. So far challenge to the statements of DWs 2 and 3 regarding proof of the will Ex. D-l is concerned, again this plea has no substance. Firstly when a reference is made to both these statements, they clearly establish the case set-up by the respondents in addition to proving the will Ex. D-1. And so far the argument that there is contradiction in the statements of both these marginal witnesses is concerned, again it has no substance. Reason being that DW-2 has categorically stated that he knew the executant of Ex. D-l who had got the will executed, thereafter he (executant) fully understood it and then had put his thumb impression in the presence of the marginal witnesses. He as well as other marginal witness both witnessed the said will. This was at the time of execution. When it was presented for registration, he as well as DW-3 had appeared before the Tehsildar, where again executant admitted correctness of the will and then put his thumb impression, and these two marginal witnesses also signed it there. In these, circumstances it cannot be said that there is any infirmity, muchless illegality committed by both the courts below in accepting the will Ex. D-1. In my considered view findings recorded in that behalf are based on correct application of law as well as proper appreciation of evidence on its preponderance. In these, circumstances it cannot be said that there is any infirmity, muchless illegality committed by both the courts below in accepting the will Ex. D-1. In my considered view findings recorded in that behalf are based on correct application of law as well as proper appreciation of evidence on its preponderance. This cannot be said to be a case of no evidence or any inadmissible evidence having been taken into account by the courts below while dismissing the suit of the appellant. It also cannot be said that the findings recorded by the courts below while dismissing the suit could not at all having been arrived at or those being perverse. 10. Another reason to hold that no question of Jaw muchless substantial question of law being involved in this case, is that appellant is trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath. When it comes to sub-serving his own interest, he says that document Ex. D-l is good and proved in accordance with law. However, when it comes to his exclusion qua tenancy land is concerned, he says said document to be bad and is liable to be set aside. How both these parts are severable, no justifiable ground, muchless plea was put up at the time of hearing. Thus when will Ex. D-l is examined in the light of evidence on record it stands duly proved by reliable evidence. No other point is urged. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no question of law, muchless substantial question of law calling for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, this appeal is summarily dismissed. CMP No. 337 of 2002 Allowed. Filing of the copy of the judgment of the trial court is dispensed with. CMP No. 338 of 2002 No orders in view of the order passed in the main matter.