Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the both the Courts below, vide which suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the suit land on the basis of title has been decreed. 2. In this case, the dispute is about 59 kanals 6 marlas of land situated in village Na-glian, District Ropar, which was owned and possessed by one Puran Singh who died on 20.6.1978. The mutation of inheritance of the land of said Puran Singh was sanctioned by the revenue authorities in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 on the basis of an unregis- . tered will dated 18.6.1978 (Ex.D2) alleged to have been executed by the aforesaid Pu-ran Singh. On 24.11.1980, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiffs for possession of the land in question by alleging that Puran Singh was their maternal uncle (Mama), whose estate was inherited by their mother Smt. Devan, who was the real sister of Puran Singh, as Puran Singh was unmarried and issueless and he died intestate. However, the defendants in connivance with the revenue authorities got the mutation of inheritance of Puran Singh sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the forged Will dated 18.6.1978, whereby 1/3rd share of the disputed property was given to defendant No. 2 and 2/3rd share was given to defendants No. 3 to 7. It was alleged that defendants No. 3 to 7 are the sons of defendant No. 1 and they were never inducted as tenants over the suit land by Puran Singh. Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of Devan. It was further pleaded that the defendants had taken forcible possession of the land in dispute and subsequently they denied the title of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that after the death of Puran Singh, land in dispute was inherited by their mother Devan who also died in April, 1980 and after her death, they have inherited the property in dispute by way of natural succession. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The death of Puran Singh was admitted. However, it was denied that Smt. Devan was in any way related to Puran Singh. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The death of Puran Singh was admitted. However, it was denied that Smt. Devan was in any way related to Puran Singh. It was pleaded that Puran Singh was residing with Surta Singh, defendant No. 1, who used to serve him and because of the services rendered by defendant No. 1, deceased Puran Singh executed a valid Will dated 18.6.1978 in favour of defendant No. 2, Smt. Dhiro being daughter of his sister qua 1/3 share and in favour of defendants No. 3 to 7 being sons of defendants No. 1 qua 2/3 share in the property in dispute. Under the said Will, the defendants had become owners of the land in question and the mutation was also sanctioned in their favour by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. It was further alleged that Puran Singh had died in the house of defendant No. 1 and was cremated by him. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 was collateral of deceased Puran Singh. The defendants also pleaded that about 35 years before his death, Puran Singh inducted defendant No. 1 as his tenant and just one year before his death he gave the land in question on tenancy to defendants No. 3 to 7. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether Smt. Devan, mother of the plaintiffs, was the sister of Puran deceased, if so, whether plaintiffs are entitled to inherit the estate of Puran deceased? OPP 2. Whether Puran deceased executed a valid Will on 18.6.1978 in favour of defendants? OPD 3. Whether defendants are related to Puran deceased, if so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether the defendants No. 3 to 7 were inducted as tenants over the suit land by Puran Singh deceased, if so, its effect ? OPD (Additional Issue). 5. Relief. 5. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 1, it was held that Smt. Devan was sister of Puran Singh deceased and the present plaintiffs being her sons are entitled to inherit the estate of Puran Singh deceased. OPD (Additional Issue). 5. Relief. 5. The learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence led by both the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 1, it was held that Smt. Devan was sister of Puran Singh deceased and the present plaintiffs being her sons are entitled to inherit the estate of Puran Singh deceased. On issue No. 2, it was held that the alleged Will dated 18.6.1978 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 7 is not valid as the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. On issue.No.3, defendants No. 1 and 3 to 7 were found to be not related to Puran Singh. However, it was held that defendant No. 2 Smt. Dhiro was the daughter of sister of Puran Singh. On issue No. 3A, it was held that defendant No. 3 to 7 were not the tenants on the suit property. 6. The appeal, filed by defendants No. 3 to 7 against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned first appellate court and the finding recorded by the learned trial court on all the aforesaid issues were affirmed. Regarding the validity of the Will dated 18.6.1978 the first appellate court observed as under;- "Surta Singh, defendant No. 1 and Smt. Dhiro defendant No. 2 had claimed a Will dated 18.6.1978, Ex.D2 executed by Puran Singh in their favour. This Will has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that there are suspicious circumstances attaching to its validity which have not been dispelled by sufficient and cogent evidence. 1 see no ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court in this connection. The will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. As observed by the learned trial court, some of the attesting witnesses of the Will belongs to the village of the deceased. The will in question has been scribed by Nachhatar Singh, defendant No. 5/DW6, who is son of Surta Singh, defendant No. 1, beneficiary under the will. The will in question is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. As observed by the learned trial court, some of the attesting witnesses of the Will belongs to the village of the deceased. The will in question has been scribed by Nachhatar Singh, defendant No. 5/DW6, who is son of Surta Singh, defendant No. 1, beneficiary under the will. Sital Singh, DW4 and Sirta Singh, DW5 are the attesting witnesses of the Will and they belong, to village khairpur and Halapur,respectively as observed by the learned trial court, Sital Singh DW4 has admitted in his cross examination that Baldev Singh, defendant No. 3, DW7 son of Surta Singh defendant No. 1, is a witness to the Will executed by Mehar Singh in his favour, Baldev Singh DW7, has also admitted that he was a witness of the Will executed by Mehar Singh in favour of Sital Singh (DW4). The Will is alleged to have been executed on 18.6.1978 while Puran Singh, testator, had died in July 1978. The Will is unregistered one. Siria Singh, DW5, has stated that Puran Singh had died 3-4 days after execution of the Will. In view of the all these facts i.e., the Will is unregistered one, the natural their has been ignored, attesting witnesses belong to other villages, it has not been scribed by a regular petition writer but has been scribed by the son of one of the beneficiaries, the testator had died only about four days after its execution, Baldev Singh son of one of the beneficiaries, had attested a will in favour of Sital Singh, one of the attesting witnesses of this will, the learned trial has rightly held that the execution of the will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Surta Singh while appearing as DW3, has stated that he cannot give the pages of the Will because it was given to him in folded condition and he had not opened it and even it was handed over to the Patwari in folded condition and the Patwari also returned the same in folded condition, he could not tell whether the Will was on stamp paper or on blank paper. In fact, he stated that he has not seen the will even till today. He could not tell the period for which the Will remained with him. He did not get it read over so far. In fact, he stated that he has not seen the will even till today. He could not tell the period for which the Will remained with him. He did not get it read over so far. Sital Singh, DW4 has stated that the Will was scribed on a paper on which stamp was affixed but he could not tell their value. He also does not remember with which ink, his thumb impressions were obtained. According to him, the rough draft of the Will was prepared and thereafter, it was done fair. He does not remember with which ink, the Will was written. According to him, Puran Singh was ill on the day of execution of the Will and was suffering from fever and pain. He has also stated that Puran Singh never talked to him about the Will earlier. Siria Singh, DW5, on the other hand, has stated that the Will was straight away written fair and no rough draft was prepared. Nachhatar Singh, DW5, has also stated that Puran Singh had died 3-4 days after the execution of the Will and was ill since 3-4 days prior to the execution of the Will. In view of all this evidence, I have no opinion but to confirm the finding of the learned trial court on issue No. 2. 7. Shri R.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the finding recorded by the Courts below only on issue No. 2. He submitted that the execution of the Will in question was duly established but the Courts below have wrongly, discarded the Will on the unsustainable ground that the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. While referring to the contents of the Will, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the Will, it was specifically acknowledged that Surta Singh, defendant No. 1, was rendering service to deceased Puran Singh and further it was mentioned that the plaintiffs were not having good relations with the deceased. Thus the reason of excluding the plaintiffs was very much implicit in the Will. It was further submitted that the Will executed by deceased Puran Singh was most genuine, as he himself has stated in the Will that he was residing with Surta Singh for the last many years and he was being served to his entire satisfaction. Thus the reason of excluding the plaintiffs was very much implicit in the Will. It was further submitted that the Will executed by deceased Puran Singh was most genuine, as he himself has stated in the Will that he was residing with Surta Singh for the last many years and he was being served to his entire satisfaction. He further submitted that the said Will was duly proved by examining the scribe and the attesting witnesses of the Will, therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances was wholly based on conjectures and surmises. 8. While referring to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Madhukar D.Shende v. Tambaiaba Shedage, (2002)2 Supreme Court Cases 85, the learned senior counsel submitted that the law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. He further submitted that the over-all intention of the testator has to be ascertained from the Will and the same should be given weightage while interpreting the Will executed by the testator. The onus to establish the valid Will is on the propounder but once the onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and the execution of the Will, then it is for the contesting party to bring material on record meeting such prima facie case. Learned counsel submitted that in the instant case the plaintiffs, could not place on record any material which could have established and proved that the Will in question was surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. He submitted that mere deprivation of natural heir is not a circumstances which itself is sufficient to hold the Will to be i-nvalid. In this regard, he referred to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Pianchanan Banerjee (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1684. On the proposition that uneven distribution of assets amongst children, by itself, cannot be taken as a circumstances causing suspicion surrounding the execution of the Will, learned counsel relied upon another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in S. Sundaresa Pai and Ors. v. Sumangala T.Pai (Mrs.) and Anr., (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 630. On the proposition that uneven distribution of assets amongst children, by itself, cannot be taken as a circumstances causing suspicion surrounding the execution of the Will, learned counsel relied upon another decision of the Honble Supreme Court in S. Sundaresa Pai and Ors. v. Sumangala T.Pai (Mrs.) and Anr., (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 630. He further submitted that merely because the Will was unregistered, it cannot be said that the same was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. He further submitted that merely because attesting witness belong to another village itself cannot be said to be a suspicious ground. In this regard, he referred to the decision of this Court in Atma Ram v. Smt. Parsini and Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Punjab & Haryana 234. Learned counsel has further relied upon decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal Arora etc. v. Girdhari Lal Manucha, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 1202, Satya Pal Gopal Das v. Smt. Panchu Bala Dasi and Ors., (1985)1 Supreme Court Cases 585 and Sadasivam v. K.Doraisamy, A.I.R, 1996 Supreme Court 1724 and decisions of this Court in Atma Ram v. Smt. Parsini and Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Punjab & Haryana 234, Pehalwan Singh v. Laddo Bibi and Ors., (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 681 and Smt. Kartar Kaur v. Gurbax Singh and Ors., (1970)72 P.L.R. 69. 9. On the other hand, Shri H.L. Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the instant case both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of facts to the effect that the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, was rightly held to be invalid. He submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal and both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of facts on the basis of evidence available on the record and the same does not require any interference in the Regular Second Appeal. He submitted that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances has to be seen and in the instant case, both the Courts below while referring to the various suspicious circumstances, have held that the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any force in the instant appeal. 10. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any force in the instant appeal. It is well settled that it is for the propounder to establish that the Will in his favour is not surrounded by any suspicious or unnatural circumstance. From the evidence available on the record the conscious of the Court has to be satisfied that the disputed Will is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. In the instant case, in my opinion, the propounders of the Will were not able to dispel the various suspicious and unnatural circumstances surrounding the Will in question. Both the Courts below have found the following suspicious and unnatural circumstances, which cumulatively lead to a conclusion that the alleged Will was not executed by the testator:- i) The Will in question was alleged to be executed two days prior to the death of Puran Singh. ii) The Will was an unregistered document. iii) The Will was scribed by NachhatarSingh, one of the beneficiaries. iv) The attesting witnesses of the Will were from different villages. v) Defendants No. 1 and 3 to 7 were not related to the testator. vi) One of the attesting witnesses, namely Shital Singh was an interested witness. as he admitted in his cross examination that one of the defendants, namely Baldev Singh alias Dev Singh was a witness to a Will executed by one Mehar Singh in his favour. vii) The exclusion of the real sister of the deceased from inheritance was not explained. 11. After taking into consideration all the aforesaid suspicious circumstances, the Courts below have rightly held that the Will in question was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The various judgments cited by learned counsel for the defendants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. One particular circumstance may not be a suspicious circumstances in a given case put the same may be so in another case. The cumulative effect of all the circumstances mentioned above leads to the conclusion that the alleged Will is not a genuine document. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of facts which does not require any interference in this Regular Second Appeal. 12. The cumulative effect of all the circumstances mentioned above leads to the conclusion that the alleged Will is not a genuine document. Both the Courts below have recorded the concurrent finding of facts which does not require any interference in this Regular Second Appeal. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.