JUDGEMENT V.M. Jain (Oral).: This Regular second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1994, passed by the learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamsala, vide which the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed,, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2.The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants had filed a suit for declaration against Prem Chand defendant, with the allegations that the Will dated 9.6.1988, allegedly executed by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of the defendant, was a forged and fraudulent document and mutation No. 195, attested on 14.9.1988, on the basis of said Will, was also null and void and the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of their respective shares in the suit land, as detailed in the plaint. It was alleged that Johanda Ram had died on 30.6.1988 and that plaintiff No.1 was his widow while plaintiffs No.2 to 5 were his daughters, whereas the defendant was the son of Johanda Ram deceased. It was alleged that the defendant had set up the Will dated 9.6.1988, allegedly executed by Johanda Ram in favour of the defendant. It was alleged that infact Johanda Ram deceased had never executed the said Will in favour of the defendant and in the alternative if it as found that the said Will was executed by him, then on account of his old age and falling health, he was not in a sound disposing mind. It was further alleged that the suit property was ancestral and could not be willed away. 3. ln the written statement, the defendant alleged that the Will in question was legal and valid and denied that it was the result of fraud or forgery. On the other hand, it was pleaded that the said Will was executed by said Johanda Ram deceased of his own sweet will in favour of the defendant who was the only son of Johanda Ram deceased. 4. Replication was filed. Various issues were framed, including issue No.1 with regard to the validity of the Will dated 9.6.1988, allegedly executed by Johanda Ram in favour of the defendant. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court decreed the. 4. Replication was filed. Various issues were framed, including issue No.1 with regard to the validity of the Will dated 9.6.1988, allegedly executed by Johanda Ram in favour of the defendant. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court decreed the. suit of the plaintiffs and the Will dated 9.6.1988, executed by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of the defendant, was declared as forged and fraudulent and the subsequent mutation, on the basis of the said Will, was also declared as null and void and the plaintiffs were declared owners in possession of their respective shares in the suit land, as per decree. However the appeal filed by Prem Chand defendant was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed holding that Johanda Ram deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of Prem Chand defendant in respect of the suit land and the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of the defendant was also legal and valid. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. The appeal was admitted to a regular hearing, vide order dated 22.2.1995, on the various substantial questions of law No.1 to 5,which were formulated alongwith the grounds of appeal. 6.1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. The various substantial questions of law, which were formulated alongwith the grounds of appeal and on which the appeal was admitted to a regular hearing, are as under:- "1) When the plaintiffs claim declaration of the title in the joint holding to the extent of 5/6th share, is the suit competent for mere declaration? 2) Whether in the suit of the present nature which was field by the plaintiff, could the appellate court hold the suit not to be maintainable when the plaintiffs could have got the possession during the partition proceedings before the Revenue Court? 3) When document which is claimed to be a Will ignores the natural heirs, particularly female heirs, is it not a suspicious circumstance which requires explanation by the propounder? 3) When document which is claimed to be a Will ignores the natural heirs, particularly female heirs, is it not a suspicious circumstance which requires explanation by the propounder? 4) Where there is a prohibition in the Agricultural Custom of Kangra for disposing of the ancestral properties by way of Will, whether the learned Appellate Court committed procedural error in not considering the fact of prohibition and the execution of the alleged Will exhibit DW-2/A? 5) Whether in the present case the propounder of the Will, Defendant-Respondent was able to discharge the initial onus led upon him for proving due attestation and execution of the exhibit DW-2/A." 8. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants submitted before me that the learned District Judge had erred in law in reversing the findings of the trial court about the validity of the Will in question and had erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. It was submitted that on the basis of the evidence available on the record, it could not be said that Johanda Ram deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of Prem Chand defendant, in sound disposing mind. 9. However, I find no fore in these submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants. 10. .As referred to above, plaintiff No. 1 is the widow and plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 are the daughters of Johanda Ram deceased. As per the case of the defendant, Johanda Ram deceased had executed Will Ex. DW-2/A, dated 9.6.1988 in favour of the defendant and subsequently he had died on 30.6.1988. The execution of the said Will was proved by DW-2 Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, scribe of the Will and DW-3 Shri Puran Chand, Chowkidar, one of the attesting witnesses of the said Will. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on the record, it was found by the learned District judge that due execution of the will in question was proved on the record and that Johanda Ram deceased had executed valid Will dated 9.6.1988 in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant. 11. Ex. DW-2/A Is the Will executed by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant. 11. Ex. DW-2/A Is the Will executed by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant. A perusal of the said Will would show that the same was scribed by Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate and was attested by Jaswant Sigh, Chowkidar and Puran Chand, Chowkidar and was executed by Johanda Ram deceased. In the said Will it was recorded that Johanda Ram deceased had four daughters, who had all been married by him and they were living in their in-laws house happily. It was also recorded therein that he had only one son namely Prem Chand who was looking after him and was married by him. It was also recorded in the said Will that Johanda Ram deceased had a wife namely Ramju Devi (Plaintiff No.1) and that Johanda Ram and his wife both were living alongwith their only son and were happy with the services rendered by him. It is further recorded in the said Will that on that account Johnada Ram deceased had executed the said will in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant in respect of the entire property held by him and it was recorded that after his (Johanda Rams) death his entire property shall be inherited by his son Prem Chand defendant. 12. DW-2 Shri N.K. Sharma. Advocate and Dw-3 Shri Puran Chand, Chowkidar had proved due execution of the said Will by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant. In their detailed cross-examination nothing could be brought out on behalf of the plaintiffs to doubt the due execution of the Will in question by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant or to doubt the veracity of these witnesses, with regard to the due execution of the said Will by Johanda Ram deceased. As referred to above, DW-2 Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, is the scribe of the said Will and DW- 3 Puran Chand. Chowkidar is one of the attesting witnesses of the said Will. DW-2 N.K. Sharma, Advocate, had categorically denied during cross-examination that Johanda Ram deceased was not physically present at the time when the Will was scribed by him. He deposed that he did not know Johanda Ram personally but knew Puran Chand, Chowkidar, as he used to come to him. Chowkidar is one of the attesting witnesses of the said Will. DW-2 N.K. Sharma, Advocate, had categorically denied during cross-examination that Johanda Ram deceased was not physically present at the time when the Will was scribed by him. He deposed that he did not know Johanda Ram personally but knew Puran Chand, Chowkidar, as he used to come to him. DW-3 Puran Chand, Chowkidar, also deposed during cross-examination that when some document was required to be scribed he used to get the same scribed from Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate. He denied the suggestion that he (Puran Chand) had signed the signatures of Johanda Ram or that the Will was forged. Except giving the aforesaid suggestions to DW-2 Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate and DW-3 Puran Chand, Chowkidar, there is no other material-on the record to show that the Will in question was not duly executed by Johanda Ram deceased in favour of Prem Chand defendant, especially when during examination-in-chief both the witnesses had categorically stated about the manner in which the Will was scribed by Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate, at the instance of Johanda Ram deceased and the same was duly attested by Puran Chand, Chowkidar and Jaswant Singh, Chowkidar. 13.Merely because the Will in question was not got registered, in my opinion, would be no ground to doubt the validity of the said Will, even if the said Will was given to the Sub Registrar for the purpose of registration. It has come on the record that the Will was taken back by Johanda Ram deceased without getting it registered since he did not have enough money for getting the Will registered. Similarly, there is nothing on the record to show that said will was forged or was the result of any fraud, nor there in anything on the record to show that Johanda Ram deceased was not in sound disposing mind wen he had executed the said Will in favour of his son Prem Chand, defendant. Merely because the Will was executed on 9.6.1988 and Johanda Ram died on 30.6.1988, by itself, would not show that Johanda Ram deceased was not in sound disposing mind at the time when he had executed the said Will. As referred to above, in the Will Ex. Merely because the Will was executed on 9.6.1988 and Johanda Ram died on 30.6.1988, by itself, would not show that Johanda Ram deceased was not in sound disposing mind at the time when he had executed the said Will. As referred to above, in the Will Ex. DW-2/A, Johanda Ram deceased had given detailed reasons as to why he was excluding his daughters, who were all married and living happily with their in-laws and why he was executing the Will in favour of his son Prem Chand, defendant, who was his only son and was serving him to his satisfaction. So far as Smt. Ramju Devi, wife of Johanda Ram deceased is concerned, it is also recorded in the said Will that she was also happy with the services rendered by their son Prem Chand, defendant. Furthermore, while appearing in the witness box as DW-1, it was stated by Prem Chand defendant that he was sending money orders to his mother and produced the receipts etc. in this regard. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not served his parents or that he had turned out his mother from the house. He denied the suggestion that he had not sent any money to his mother. He stated that sometimes his mother lives in his house and sometimes goes to live with her daughter Veena Devi. He stated that he could not give a share to his mother Smt. Ramju Devi, but could give her maintenance. Ex. D-1 to D-7 are the money order receipts, showing dispatch of money by Prem Chand to his mother Smt. Ramju Devi by money orders. Considering that Johanda Ram deceased, in the Will Ex, DW-2/A, had recorded that he and his wife were satisfied with the services rendered by their son Prem Chand and further considering that Puran Chand defendant was sending money to his mother Smt. Ramju Devi for her maintenance, in my opinion, would clearly show that Johanda Ram deceased had executed the Will in question in favour of his son Prem Chand defendant, in sound disposing mind. Merely because in the Will Ex.DW-2 Johanda Ram deceased had I ignored his wife Smt. Ramju Devi, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold that the ;; Will in question was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. In Sarla Devi and others Vs. Merely because in the Will Ex.DW-2 Johanda Ram deceased had I ignored his wife Smt. Ramju Devi, by itself, would not be sufficient to hold that the ;; Will in question was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. In Sarla Devi and others Vs. Munshi Ram and others 1975 Shimla Law Journal 109 (HP), it was held by this court that where by virtue of Will property has been given to the son and sons son ignoring female members of the family, whether they are daughters daughter or sons daughter, the same is in keeping with the sentiments popular in this land. In the present case, as referred to above, Johanda Ram deceased had given valid reasons for ignoring his married daughters and so far as his wife is concerned she has been taken care of by Prem Chand defendant and that being so there is absolutely no reason to doubt the legality of the Will in question. 14. In view of the detailed discussion above. I uphold the findings of the learned District Judge with regard to the validity of the Will in question and mutation of inheritance in favour of Prem Chand, defendant. 15. So far as the various substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are concerned, in my opinion, these substantial questions of law have to be decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. So far as first substantial question of law is concerned, the learned District judge had held that the plaintiffs were out of possession and as such the present suit for mere declaration was barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Nothing has been pointed out before me during arguments to show as to how and in what manner the present suit for declaration alone was maintainable when it was proved on the file that plaintiffs-appellants were not in possession of the suit property, in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is decided, against the plaintiffs-appellants since there is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiffs-appellants were in possession of suit property. If the suit for declaration alone was not maintainable, the question of the plaintiffs taking possession of the suit property during partition proceedings would not arise. Thus, this substantial question of law is also decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. If the suit for declaration alone was not maintainable, the question of the plaintiffs taking possession of the suit property during partition proceedings would not arise. Thus, this substantial question of law is also decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. .16.The third substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is that the Will is suffering from suspicious circumstance on the ground that the natural heirs, particularly female heirs, had been ignored and required explanation by the propounder. In my opinion, in the present case Johanda Ram deceased had given reasonable explanation for ignoring the female members and executing the Will in favour of Prem Chand defendant, who was the only son of the deceased In my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that will in question suffered from any suspicious circumstance and that being so there is no reason to ignore the Will in question. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is also decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. 17. With regard to the fourth substantial question of law regarding ancestral nature of the suit property, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the suit property was ancestral or that on that account Johanda Ram deceased was not competent to execute the Will in question in favour of his son Prem Chand. In the plaint it was alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit property was ancestral and the parties were agricultures and were governed by agricultural custom. In the written statement it was alleged that Johanda Ram was competent to execute the Will and that the parties were governed by Hindu law in respect of succession. When Ramju Devi plaintiff appeared in the witness box as PW-1 she did not utter a single word to show that the suit property was ancestral or that Johanda Ram could not have executed the Will in question in favour of his son. PW-2 Partap Chand, produced by the plaintiffs, did not say anything in this regard. So far as mutation Ex. PA. Girdwari Ex. PB, Jamabandies Ex. PA, Ex. PB and mutation Ex PC produced on behalf of the plaintiffs are concerned, in my opinion, from these documents it could not be said that the suit property was ancestral and or Johanda Ram deceased was incompetent to execute the Will in respect of the suit property. So far as mutation Ex. PA. Girdwari Ex. PB, Jamabandies Ex. PA, Ex. PB and mutation Ex PC produced on behalf of the plaintiffs are concerned, in my opinion, from these documents it could not be said that the suit property was ancestral and or Johanda Ram deceased was incompetent to execute the Will in respect of the suit property. That being so, the fourth substantial question of law is also decided against the plaintiffs-appellants and it is held that Johanda Ram deceased was competent to execute the Will. 18. So far as the fifth substantial question of law is concerned, in my opinion, from the testimony of DW-2 Shri N.K. Sharma, Advocate and DW-3 Shri Puran Chand, Chowkidar, it stands fully proved on the record that the defendant-respondent Prem Chand had discharged the onus of proving the due execution and attestation of the Will in question and that being so, it would be lear that the will in question was validly executed. Accordingly, this substantial question of law is also decided against the plaintiffs-appellants. 19. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. 20. For the reasons record above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.