Judgment A.C. Goyal, J.-This S.B. Civil First Appeal by the plaintiff has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 5.1990, whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and mense profits. 2. Briefly statedthe facts of the case are that the plaintifffiled a suit for possession and mesne profits against the defendant respondent on 18.4.1978, with the averments that the plaintiff is the son of Shri Radha Vallabh-nephew of deceased Kheri Lal. 3. That on 2nd May 1946, Shri Kheri Lal executed his last Will. According to the Will Kheri lal bequeathed some properties in favour of his daughter (the defendant in this case) and the remaining properties in favour of the plaintiff While giving details of the properties bequeathed vide this Will, it has been pleaded that some portion of the House No. 285 was given to the defendant and the remaining Haveli No. 285 was given to the plaintiff In addition to this, the Haveli No. 283 was also given to the plaintiff Both the properties are situated in Jaipur. 4. That Shri Kheri Lal died on 5th May, 1946. At that time Smt. Pura Devi, wife of Kheri Lal, the defendant and Smt. Chota Devi the widow of Kheri Lal’s younger brother were alive. According to the Will Smt. Chota Devi and Smt. Pura Devi were given right of residence in the house bequeathed by Will. It was further provided in the Will that the plaintiffwould provide appropriate amount for their maintenance and in case the plaintiff fails to do so both of them would be entitled to recover the rent from the tenants for their maintenance but they would have no right to alienate the said property. 5. That both Smt. Pura Devi and Smt. Chota Devi refused to receive maintenance amount from the plaintiff and expressed their desire to receive the rent from the tenants and they continued to reside in this house till they expired. Smt. Pura Devi died on 112.1970 while Smt. Chota Devi died on 10.11.1974. 6. That the defendant who was residing at Beawer came to Jaipur and started living in the house left by Shri Kheri Lal. The plaintiff after the death of Smt. Pura Devi and Smt. Chota Devi asked the defendant to vacate the premises but she refused to do so. 7. 6. That the defendant who was residing at Beawer came to Jaipur and started living in the house left by Shri Kheri Lal. The plaintiff after the death of Smt. Pura Devi and Smt. Chota Devi asked the defendant to vacate the premises but she refused to do so. 7. That in January 1974, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant after the death of her mother and in the life time of Smt. Chota Devi got rent notes executed from all the tenants and she is receiving Rs. 300/-as monthly rent from the tenants. The plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant on 3 3.1975 and in reply to this notice the defendant even denied the execution of any Will, hence the suit. 8. The defendant in her written statement denied the pedigree as mentioned in para one of the plaint, any relationship of the plaintiff with her late father and all the facts relating to execution of the Will. It was pleaded by her that her father was ill for last six months and became unconscious about one week prior to his death on 5.1946 and thus his father was not in a position to execute any Will. While giving the facts against the execution of any Will, it was pleaded that the suit is beyond limitation. 9. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed. ??????????????????????? Hindi Matter ??????????????????????? 10. After recording the evidence of both the parties, the learned trial Judge vide impugned Judgment while deciding all the issues except issue No. 6 against the plaintiff dismissed the suit with costs, hence this appeal. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On the submissions made by learned counsel, following points arise in this appeal: 1. Whether the Will Ex. 1 was executed by Shri Kheri Lal in sound and disposing state of mind and thus the said Will was true and genuine? 2. Whether irrespective of the Will Ex. 1, the defendant became the absolute owner of the disputed property in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956? 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation ?“ 12. 2. Whether irrespective of the Will Ex. 1, the defendant became the absolute owner of the disputed property in view of the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956? 3. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation ?“ 12. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1925’) provides the mode of execution of the Will while Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1872’), provides the mode of proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. The said provisions are as under: “63(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. 68... Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.-If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provides that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 [16 of 1908], unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]” FIRST POINT According to learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant the execution of the will Ex. 1 was proved in accordance with the Provisions of Section 68 of the Act 1872 as one of the attesting witness P.W.7 Shri Badri Narain Sethi has proved its execution in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Act 1925 and there was no reason to discard his evidence. It was also contended that none of the eleven circumstances as relied upon by the learned trial Judge was a suspicious circumstance and it is not a case of total exclusion of the legal heirs of late Shri Kherilal. He referred the evidence on record and submitted that the plaintiff proved execution of the will Ex. 1 and placed reliance upon Gopinath Sunderlal vs. Chunnilal & Anr., A.I.R. 1953 Nagpur 316; Ishwardeo Narain Singh vs. Kamta Devi & Ors., A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 281; Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 529; Rajlakshnii Dassi Bechulal Das vs. Krishna Chaitanya Das Mohanta, A.I.R. 1972 Calcutta 210; Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, (2002) 2 SCC 85 ; Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) Through LRs. & Ors. vs. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 537 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent contended that the decision of the trial court is based on proper appreciation of evidence and the plaintiff failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. Reliance is placed upon Jawanmal vs. Achaldas, R.L.W. 1954 Raj 668; Ramchandra Rambux vs. Champabail, A.I.R. 1965 SC 354; Motilal & Anr. vs. Anandi bai & Anr., U.J. (S.C. 1971, 206); Bhagwan Kaur vs. Kartar Kaur & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 135 ; Guro (Smt.) vs. Atma Singh & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 507 ; Gurdial Kaur & Ors. vs. Kartar Kaur & Ors., A.I.R. 1998 SC 2861; H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thinimajamma & Ors., A.I.R. 1959 SC 443; Gaindi Lal vs. Bhura Mal, R.L.W. 1953 Raj387. 13. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the evidence and the Judgment s cited above. The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63(c) of the Act 1925. 13. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the evidence and the Judgment s cited above. The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63(c) of the Act 1925. Where it appears that the propounder has taken prominent part in the execution of the will which confers a sub stantial benefit on him, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine one and in such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. 14. In the present case while giving details of the pedigree, the plaintiff has come with a case that he is son of Shri Radha Vallabh, who was nephew of deceased Kheri Lal i.e. the testator. The defendant in her written-statement denied this pedigree as well as the fact that Shri Radha Vallabh was the nephew of Kheri Lal. It was also denied that Jai Narain and Moti Ram were sons of Laxmi Narain. As per written statement Moti Ram was son of one Kripa Ram. It was pleaded that Nanag Ram was son of Moti Ram and Govind Ram was son of Nanag Ram and both Kheri Lal and Kishan Lal were two sons of Govind Ram. Nanag Ram had no son named Sheo Chand and late Kheri Lal was in no where related to Laxmi Narain and thus the entire pedigree is false. 15. Now coming to the evidence, P.W.1 the plaintiff Shri Vallabh stated that the pedigree mentioned in the plaint is correct but in cross-examination he pleaded ignorance about his ancestors as stated in the plaint. It was also stated by him that he knows only this fact that Govind Ram and Nanag Ram were respectively father and grand-father of late Shri Kheri Lal. Thus the plaintiff failed to prove this pedigree and the fact that his father was nephew of Shri Kheri Lal. It was also stated by him that he knows only this fact that Govind Ram and Nanag Ram were respectively father and grand-father of late Shri Kheri Lal. Thus the plaintiff failed to prove this pedigree and the fact that his father was nephew of Shri Kheri Lal. It was held by Division Bench of this Court in Jawanmal’s case (supra), that in order that a person may succeed in getting letters of administration on the basis of relationship, he has to prove the relationship on which he relies, and also prima facie that there is no nearer heir alive. It was also held that where the witnesses produced to prove the correctness of pedigree were too young to have personally see the common ancestor and they did hot disclose the source of their knowledge, their evidence could not be relied on and thus it was held that pedigree was not proved. The defendant Smt. Grnni Devi is daughter of late Shri Kheri Lal. She stated that there was none in the name of Laxmi Narain as her father’s ancestors. She denied any relationship of her father with the plaintiff as well as plaintiff s father. The oral testimony of other witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties is not relevant on this aspect. Thus the plaintiff failed to prove the pedigree as well as this fact that his father was nephew of late Shri Kheri lal. 16. I have gone through Ex.1. The reasons for executing this will in favour of the plaintiff as stated in this will are that the testator i.e. Kheri lal had no son, he has become 65 years old, often remains ill, the plaintiff Vallabh is the son of Radha Vallabh, his nephew in relation, the plaintiff Vallabh is serving him in his old age and he has a hope that he will serve him, his wife and his brother Kishan Lal’s wife in future also and thus being happy with the plaintiff he is going to execute this will in his favour. 17. As stated here-in-above, one of the reasons that plaintiffs father was nephew of Shri Kheri Lal has not been found proved. Now it has to be seen as to whether the reasons favourable to the plaintiff for execution of the said will in his favour have been proved or not ? 17. As stated here-in-above, one of the reasons that plaintiffs father was nephew of Shri Kheri Lal has not been found proved. Now it has to be seen as to whether the reasons favourable to the plaintiff for execution of the said will in his favour have been proved or not ? In para 6 of the plaint, it is pleaded that Smt. Pura Devi and Smt. Chota Devi declined to accept the maintenance amount from the plaintiff and expressed their desire to receive the rent from the tenants in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the will Ex. 1. It is undisputed that Smt. Pura Devi died in December 1970 while Smt. Chota Devi died in November 1974. The plaintiff admitted this fact in examination-in-chief that both Pura Devi and Chota Devi stayed with him only for 15-20 days after the death of Kheri Lal and both of them expressed their desire that they would reside separately from the plaintiff and would receive the rent from the tenants. It was also admitted by him that soon after the death of Kheri Lai, Smt. Pura Devi started receiving the rent from the tenants. It was also admitted by him that the defendant vide Notice Ex.3 asked him to pay the rent after four months of the death of Kheri Lal. He further stated that the defendant took over the possession of the entire premises and this fact came to his knowledge only in January 1975 and thereafter he got a notice Ex.4 served upon her through advocate. He further stated that all the expenses in the treatment of Kherilal and after his death were borne out by Smt. Pura Devi. He also admitted this fact that Smt. Chota Devi was in a paralytic condition for about a period of four years and the entire expenses were borne out by the defendant Smt. Ginni Devi and her husband and he (the plaintifl was not in speaking terms with them. Thus this evidence of the plaintiff himself clearly goes to show that he failed to prove these facts also that he ever served late Shri Kheri Lal and he served wife of Kherilal as well as his brother Kishal Lars wife at any point of time. Thus this evidence of the plaintiff himself clearly goes to show that he failed to prove these facts also that he ever served late Shri Kheri Lal and he served wife of Kherilal as well as his brother Kishal Lars wife at any point of time. It is also significant to say here that the plaintiff even did not plead these facts that he used to serve Shri Kheri Lal and also served his wife as well as his brother’s wife after his death. Therefore, the second important reason for executing the will in favour of plaintiff that the plaintiff was serving Shri Kheri Lal in his old age and he would continue to serve Kheri Lal, his wife and his brother’s wife in future also goes away. In view of the entire discussion made here-in-above, the reasons for execution of this will in favour of the plaintiff have not been proved at all by the plaintiff and thus the very basis for execution of the said will in plaintiffs favour is not proved. 18. A careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that even the execution of the said will in accordance with the provisions of law is not proved. There are in all nine attesting witnesses who had put their signatures on the Will Ex. 1 according to the plaintiffs case. It is not in dispute that all except P.W. 7 Badri Narain Sethi had expired. P.W.2 Gapu Chand is the adopted son of attesting witness Diwan Shyam lal. P.W.3 Manmohan Lal is the son of attesting witness Devi Narain. P.W.4 Girdhari Lal is the son of attesting witness Diwan Bhanwar Lal. P.W.6 Hanuman Prasad is the son of attesting witness Ganga Pratap. All of them have identified the signatures of their respective fathers on this will Ex. 1. Now comes P.W.7 Shri Badri Narain, who is said to be the one of the nine attesting witnesses. In examination-in- chief , he stated in accordance with the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Act 1925 that he put his signatures ‘P to Q’ on Ex.1 in presence of Shri Kheri Lal and under his instructions and Shri Kheri Lal put his thumb impression marked ‘A’ in his presence and at that time Shri Kheri Lal was mentally fit. But in cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance about each and every question put to him. But in cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance about each and every question put to him. He pleaded ignorance as to when Shri Kheri Lal died after execution of this document. He pleaded ignorance that prior to his death Shri Kheri Lal was ill since long. Although he was ill but he does not know about the nature of ailment. He also pleaded ignorance about the draft of this will, as to the scribe of this will and regarding the presence of other witnesses also. He stated that he does not know as to whether Kheri Lal was not even able to speak for last ten days prior to his death and he did not have any talk with Kheri Lal at the time of execution of will. He also does not remember as to who were other witnesses who signed this document in his presence and he also does not remember as to whether the wife, daughter and son-in-law of Shri Kheri Lal were present or not at that time. He also does not remember the time and the contents of this will and the fact that whether this will was read over or not, although he admitted his relationship with the plaintiff Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant contended that this will is dated 2nd May, 1946 while P.W.7 Badri Narain was examined during trial on 21.1980 and thus after a lapse of such long period it is natural to forget such facts. But keeping in view the surrounding circumstances of the execution of this will, the statement of only one alive attesting witness assumes much significance. As stated here-in-above he remembered these facts that he put his signatures upon the instructions of Kheri Lal and in his presence and Shri Kheri Lal put his thumb impressions in his presence but he pleaded ignorance about each and every question put to him in cross-examination and, therefore, his testimony can not be relied upon simply on the ground that his statement was recorded after a period of about 34 years. A perusal of the other evidence goes to show that Shri Kheri Lal was not physically and mentally fit to execute the said will. A perusal of the other evidence goes to show that Shri Kheri Lal was not physically and mentally fit to execute the said will. There is one important contradiction also with regard to place of execution of this will as according to the plaintiff , this will was executed on third floor of haveli No. 285 in a room facing east while according to P.W.7 Badri Narain the said will was executed in one room on the first floor. This contradiction assumes significance in view of the entire evidence and suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of this will, although in Shashi Kumar’s case (supra), it was held that where the evidence of both the attesting witnesses to the will is that the will was executed in the after-noon on the date on which it purported to have been executed, a slight discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses as to the time when the will was executed is not so serious as to destroy the value of their evidence. Thus even the execution of this Will is not proved as provided under Section 63(c) of the Act 1925, in this case. 19. The defendant Smt. Grnni Devi stated that her father Kheri lal was ill for about five to six months prior to his death as blood was oozing from his mouth and nose during that period and he was under the treatment of one Dr. Syed. It was also stated by her that her father remained unconscious for about ten days prior to his death and during those ten days neither he was able to speak nor able to recognise any person. D.W.2 Shri Rameshwar Prasad, D.W.3 Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, D.W.4 Shri Kanhaiyalal and D.W.5 Shri Anand Swaroop all have corroborated the above statement of the defendant Smt. Grnni Devi and further stated that Smt. Grnni Devi, her mother and wife of younger brother of late Kheri Lal used to look after Shri Kheri Lal. All these witnesses have been cross-examined in detail but nothing adverse has come out and thus in view of such evidence it appears that Shri Kheri Lal was not in sound and disposing state of mind and thus the said will was not found rightly to be true and genuine. All these witnesses have been cross-examined in detail but nothing adverse has come out and thus in view of such evidence it appears that Shri Kheri Lal was not in sound and disposing state of mind and thus the said will was not found rightly to be true and genuine. Even the plaintiff Shri Valiabh in cross-examination stated that Shri Kheri Lal was confined to bed for 10 to 15 days prior to his death as he was suffering from Bronchitis and was under treatment of Dr. Swaroop Narain Mathur. The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff and thus it was his duty to prove that Kheri Lal was physically and mentally fit to execute this will but he failed to examine any doctor to prove this fact. As stated here- in-above P.W.7 Shri Badri Narain though admitted that Kheri Lal was ill but pleaded ignorance about the period of his illness and also the fact as to whether Shri Kheri Lal was unable to speak for about ten days before his death although he admitted this fact that he had no talk with Shri Kheri Lal at that time. Thus the trial court rightly observed that it was not proved that Shri Kheri Lal was in sound and disposing state of mind at the relevant time of execution of this Will. 20. Now, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant about eleven suspicious circumstances dealt with by the learned trial Judge are to be discussed. The first circumstance is that this will is neither on stamp paper nor registered one and why the signatures of the defendant as well as her mother and aunt were not obtained as they were present according to the statement of the plaintiff himself In Ishwardeo’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that as there was nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all and no inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration can be drawn. Therefore, the fact that the will is unregistered, may not be a suspicious circumstance but the presence of the wife of Shri Kheri Lal, his brother’ s wife as well as the presence of the defendant had been admitted by the plaintiff himself in his statement but he has given no explanation as to why signatures of none of them were not obtained on Ex. 1. Thus, it is certainly a suspicious circumstance with regard to execution of the said will. 21. As far as circumstances No. 2 to 10 are concerned, they can not be really termed as suspicious circumstance as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant as a perusal of the earlier litigation between the parties as well as between the tenants on the one hand and Smt. Pura Devi, Smt. Chota Devi and the present defendant on the other hand, goes to show that parties were aware about the will in favour of the plaintiff and thus it was not correct to say that the plaintiff never disclosed this will prior to filing the present suit. Ex.A.5 is certified copy of the order passed by Assistant Revenue Officer, City Survey, This order is dated 212.1949 and it shows a dispute between the present plaintiff and Smt. Pura Devi. A perusal of this order goes to show that the present plaintiff relied upon a will said to be executed by Shri Kheri Lal in his favour but according to this decision the entire property was found in possession of Smt. Pura Devi and her tenants and the plaintiff was having no possession over any portion of the said properties. Ex.6 is the certified copy of the application filed by Smt. Pura Devi on 19.8.1950 in the department of City Survey, wherein she stated that no will was executed in favour of Shri Valiabh the present plaintiff Ex.A.4 is certified copy of the order passed by Assistant Revenue Officer of City Survey. This order is dated 211.1950. A perusal of this order also goes to show that the plaintiff relied upon this Will in his favour said to be executed by Shri Kheri Lal and the plaintiff was directed to approach the Civil Court. Thus it was factually not correct to observe by the learned trial Judge that the plaintifi never disclosed this will prior to filing of the suit. Thus it was factually not correct to observe by the learned trial Judge that the plaintifi never disclosed this will prior to filing of the suit. The other circumstances that a suit was filed by one Shri Mohammad Bux against the plaintiff as well as the defendant against the demolition of one toilet and the present plaintiff did not file any written statement; that in eviction suit filed by the present defendant against the tenants the applications filed by the present plaintiff to be impleaded as a party were dismissed; that in such applications the present plaintiff did not disclose names of two attesting witnesses Ladu Ram and Ram Kishore are not the circumstances which may be said to be suspicious surrounding the execution of this will. Likewise denial of execution of the will by Smt. Chota Devi vide her two affidavits Ex. 11 and 12 and two blank lines in the end of the said will are also not suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said will and further there was no material available on the record to arrive at a conclusion as suspicious circumstance No. 10 that the ink used in Ex.1 appears to be only ten years old. But the circumstance No. 11 is certainly a suspicious circumstance which has been upheld by this court that the plaintiff appellant has failed to prove any pedigree or his relationship with late Shri Kheri Lal. I have gone though the other Judgment s also relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. In Ramabai’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even it the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. But in the instant case the facts are quite distinguishable as the very reasons for executing this will in favour of the plaintiff have not been proved. This is really a very strong suspicious circumstance as to why this will was executed in favour of the plaintiff who was not related to the testator and that too excluding the testator’s wife, his brother’s wife and his own daughter. This is really a very strong suspicious circumstance as to why this will was executed in favour of the plaintiff who was not related to the testator and that too excluding the testator’s wife, his brother’s wife and his own daughter. A very small portion in Haveli No. 285 was given to the defendant while entire remaining portion of the said Haveli as well as the entire Haveli No. 283 were bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff and only a provision for life maintenance was made for the testator’s wife and his brother’s wife. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhukar D. Shende’s case (supra), held that the conscience of the court has to be satisfied by the propounder of the will adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicious or unnatural circumstances attaching to a will provided that there is something unnatural or suspicious about the will. In the instant case the plaintiff-appellant has failed to satisfy the