JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:- This judgment shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No.4 73 of 1981 and 2726 of 1983, which are arising out from two different suits, pertaining to the same property. 2. RSA No.473 of 1981 has been filed by defendant No.1 Ram Rachhpal against the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiffs Kailash Chander, Smt. Indra and Smt.Tara, son and daughters of late Munshi Ram, for joint possession of the suit disputed property was decreed. 3. RSA No.2726 of 1983 has been filed by plaintiffs Nirmal- Singh and others (defendants in the above suit) against the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below, whereby their suit filed against Kailash Chander, Smt.Indra and Smt.Tara (plaintiffs in the above suit) and others for declaration that the order dated 03.02.1981, passed by the Collector, Ludhiana, under the Punjab Redemption of Mortgage Act, ordering the redemption of part of the suit property on an application filed by son and daughters of Munshi Ram was illegal, null and void and inoperative against them, was dismissed. . 4. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of both these appeals (which are being taken from RSA No.473 of 1981), are that one Munshi Ram was owner of the suit property. He was married to one Smt. Atti alias Atma Devi. No issue was born from the said wed-lock. After some time of the said marriage, when no issue was born, Munshi Ram performed second marriage with one Anjana Bai, much before the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. From the said wed-lock, the plaintiffs Kailash Chander, Smt. Indra and Smt. Tara were born. After the death of Munshi Ram, Atti @ Atma Devi, being his widow, got ¼th share of his property and the remaining 3/4th share was mutated in favour of the plaintiffs, being son and daughters of Munshi Ram. On 08.01.1975, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi died. After her death, Kailash Chander and his two sisters filed the instant suit alleging therein that they are son and daughters of late Munshi Ram and are entitled to 1/4th share of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, who inherited the same from her late husband Munshi Ram. On 08.01.1975, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi died. After her death, Kailash Chander and his two sisters filed the instant suit alleging therein that they are son and daughters of late Munshi Ram and are entitled to 1/4th share of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, who inherited the same from her late husband Munshi Ram. It is alleged that Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was having no issue and the plaintiffs being her step son and daughters are entitled to inherit her share in the suit property. It is further alleged that after the death of, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, defendant, No.1 Ram Rachhpal (appellant herein), who is her nephew (brother’s son) took the forcible possession of the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 07.09.1974, which was registered on 06.12.1974, allegedly executed by Smt. Atti @Atma Devi in favour of defendant No.1. It was alleged that the said Will was a forged and manipulated document, as Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was a lady of weak health and was not in a capacity to understand her right and wrong and she never executed the said Will of her own free will. Therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. 5. Defendant No.1 contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that Munshi Ram never performed any legal marriage with Smt. Anjana Bai, who was only his Mistress. Therefore, the plaintiffs are illegitimate son and daughters of Munshi Ram and they have no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further alleged that after the death of Munshi Ram, the mutation with regard to his 3/4th share was sanctioned in the name of the plaintiffs in the absence of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, therefore, the same is not binding on her. It is further alleged that after the death of Munshi Ram, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi inherited his entire property being his widow. It is also alleged that after the death of Munshi Ram, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was residing at Village Sihan Daud, where she was looked after by defendant No.1. In lieu of the services rendered by defendant No.1, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi executed a valid Will on 07.09.1974 out of her free will, while in a sound and disposing state of mind. The said Will was subsequently got registered on 06.12.1974. 6. In lieu of the services rendered by defendant No.1, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi executed a valid Will on 07.09.1974 out of her free will, while in a sound and disposing state of mind. The said Will was subsequently got registered on 06.12.1974. 6. Defendants No.2 to 11 (appellants in RSA No.2726 of 1983), who were mortgagees of Munshi Ram on the suit property, though initially filed the written statement, but subsequently, they were proceeded against ex-parte. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:­ 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in dispute? OPP 2. Whether Shrimati Atma Devi deceased executed a valid Will in favour of defendant No.1? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are not the son and daughters of Shri Munshi Ram deceased? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP 5. If issue No.3 is not proved, whether the mutation sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs is valid? OPP 6. Relief. 8. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. On issue No.3, it was held that the plaintiffs are son and daughters of Munshi Ram. This finding was recorded on the basis of the statements of PW1 Brij Mohan, PW8 Kailash Chander and PW9 Chander Mohan; the pedigree table Ex.P7, death entry of Anjana Bai Ex.P8; and the birth entries of two plaintiffs EX.P9 and Ex.P10. It was further held that after the death of Munshi Ram, mutation with regard to 3/4th share of his land was rightly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs being his son and daughters. Regarding the alleged Will dated 07.09. 1974, it was held that the same was not a valid Will of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, as at the time of execution of the alleged Will, she was not of sound disposing mind. At that time, she was about 80 years of age and was not in a position to see. It was further held that execution of the alleged Will is surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. It was also held that even the statements of scribe and the marginal witnesses of the Will are full of serious discrepancies, which create doubt about execution of the Will. It was further held that execution of the alleged Will is surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. It was also held that even the statements of scribe and the marginal witnesses of the Will are full of serious discrepancies, which create doubt about execution of the Will. It was also found that in the Will as well as in the written statement, it was stated that Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was living at Village Sihan Daud for more than 15 years prior to the execution of the Will and defendant No.1 being her nephew used to look after her, but from the evidence, it has been proved that Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was living at Kila Raipur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and she was not keeping good health. Only in the winter of 1974, she was taken by her brother on a cot to village Sihan Daud, where after few days she died after executing the alleged Will. On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties, it was found as a fact that at the time of execution of the alleged Will, Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was near about 80 years of age and was not in a sound disposing mind. It was further found as a fact that even after the death of Munshi Ram, she was throughout living in village Killa Raipur, the village of her husband and she was being maintained by the collateral of Munshi Ram and the plaintiffs used to send her some money regularly through bank. This finding was recorded on the basis of the bank record. A finding was also recorded to the effect that defendant No.1 also took active participation in execution of the Will. All these findings were recorded after appreciating the evidence led by both the parties. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant No.1 filed appeal, which was dismissed by the first appellate court and findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed. The first appellate court again after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the due execution of the Will has not been proved, as at that time the testator Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was not in a sound disposing state of mind. The first appellate court again after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the due execution of the Will has not been proved, as at that time the testator Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was not in a sound disposing state of mind. Execution of the Will was also found to be surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 10. Against the said judgments and decree, passed by both the courts below, defendant No.1 has filed the instant Regular Second Appeal (RSA No.473 of 1981). 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 has made two fold submissions. Firstly that both the courts below have committed grave illegality and perversity, while recording the finding that the appellant-defendant No.1 has failed to prove the due execution of the Will and to repel or explain the suspicious circumstances, surrounding the execution of the Will, to the satisfaction of the Court. Secondly, that in absence of any proof of marriage between Munshi Ram and Anjana Bai, the plaintiffs cannot be proved to be son and daughters of Munshi Ram and they cannot succeed to his property and to the property of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, which she inherited from Munshi Ram. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the defendant-appellant has duly proved the execution of the Will by examining DW1 Salamat Rai, scribe of the Will, DW2 Joginder Singh and DW3 Ishar Singh, the marginal witnesses of the Will, DW5 Gurnam Singh, who had signed the endorsement at the time of registration of the Will, DW4 Amarjit Singh, the Registration Clerk, who proved the registration of the Will. He submitted that all these witnesses, who are completely dis-interested and are independent, have fully supported the case of defendant No.1. These witnesses not only proved that the Will was duly executed by Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi in favour of defendant No.1, but they have also proved that at the time of execution of Will, she was in sound disposing state of mind and was in full senses. Learned counsel submitted that both the attesting witness i.e. DW2 Joginder Singh and DW3 Ishar Singh, were respectable persons of village Sihan Daud, as Joginder Singh was Lambardar and Ishar Singh was Member Panchayat of the said village. Learned counsel submitted that both the attesting witness i.e. DW2 Joginder Singh and DW3 Ishar Singh, were respectable persons of village Sihan Daud, as Joginder Singh was Lambardar and Ishar Singh was Member Panchayat of the said village. Both these witnesses have categorically stated that Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi was in sound disposing mind and she was being served by Ram Rachhpal­ defendant No.1, as she was living in the said village for the last about 10 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the execution of the Will was not at all surrounded by any suspicious circumstance and all the alleged suspicious circumstances have been duly explained by the evidence led by defendant No.1. While referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana and others v. Pentakota Seetharatnom and others, (2005)8 SCC 67, learned counsel submitted that by proving the due execution of the Will by examining the scribe and the attesting witnesses, who had categorically stated that at the time of execution of the Will, the testator was in a sound disposing mind, the defendant-appellant has discharged the initial onus. Thereafter, the onus shifted on the plaintiffs, who have failed to discharge the shifted onus in proving that the alleged Will was not duly executed or was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel further submitted that the mere fact that the beneficiaries under the Will had participated in the execution of the Will, as has been observed by the Court below, or that the natural heirs are debarred from the property, could not make out a case of a suspicious circumstances and undue influence. Learned counsel further submitted that merely because the testator was more than 80 years of age at the time of execution of the Will and she died within one month of the execution/registration of the Will, it cannot be taken that the testator was not in a sound state of health and not capable of understanding the things. Learned counsel also submitted that both the courts below have wrongly taken the inference that thumb mark A on the impugned Will has not been explained by DW1 Salamat Rai, the scribe, as the said thumb impression was in a different colour. Learned counsel submitted that the said circumstance has been clearly explained. Learned counsel also submitted that both the courts below have wrongly taken the inference that thumb mark A on the impugned Will has not been explained by DW1 Salamat Rai, the scribe, as the said thumb impression was in a different colour. Learned counsel submitted that the said circumstance has been clearly explained. Learned counsel contended that both the courts below have drawn a wrong conclusion from the evidence, available on the record, about the execution of the Will, therefore, a substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. 13. Regarding the second submission, learned counsel submitted that both the courts below have erred in law while not appreciating that there is no evidence on the record proving the alleged marriage of Munshi Ram with Smt. Anjana Bai. In absence of any evidence, the plaintiffs cannot be treated as son and daughters of Munshi Ram from Anjana Bai. Therefore, they cannot succeed to the property of Munshi Ram as well as of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi. Learned counsel further submitted that the courts below have also not appreciated that Munshi Ram first got married to Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi and without obtaining divorce from her started living with Smt. Anjana Bai. Therefore, children of Munshi Ram from Smt. Ajnaja Bai are illegitimate children and they are not entitled to succeed the property of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, who became the absolute owner of the said property by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He submitted that the illegitimate children cannot be treated as ‘legal heirs of husband’. He contended that in Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the Act, the word ‘heirs’ does not include illegitimate children of husband. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot inherit the property of Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi received by her from her husband. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs submitted that both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, have recorded a pure finding of fact to the effect that defendant No.1 has failed to prove the due execution of the Will, which is surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. Learned counsel submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned judgments and decree, passed by both the courts below. Learned counsel submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned judgments and decree, passed by both the courts below. While referring to the findings of fact, recorded by both the courts below regarding the suspicious circumstances, learned counsel submitted that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that the alleged Will was duly executed by Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi of her free will, as at the time of the execution of the alleged Will, she was not in a sound disposing mind. From the judgments of both the courts below, learned counsel pointed out that the witnesses produced by defendant No.1, in order to prove the execution of the Will, were not found to be trust worth, as there were many contradictions, in their statements. In support of his plea, learned counsel further submitted that at the time of the alleged execution of the Will, Smt Atti @ Atma Devi was more than 80 years of age and was not in a sound disposing mind. She was residing in village Killa Raipur up-till November, 1974. At that time she was ill and was taken by father of defendant No.1 on a cot. in the regard, the plaintiffs examined the respectable and reliable persons of village Killa Raipur, where Smt.Atti @ Atma Devi was residing. On the other hand, defendant No.1 has examined all the witnesses, who are residents of village Sihan Daud and their statements were not trust worthy being contradictory. Learned counsel further submitted that it has been proved on record by the documentary evidence that the plaintiffs are son and daughters of Munshi Ram. After his death, they being his legal heirs also inherited 3/4th share of the suit property. In this regard, mutation was sanctioned, which has not been disputed. Learned counsel further submitted, that Munshi Ram performed second marriage much prior to the coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that Munshi Ram could not perform the second marriage without getting divorce from Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi. He submitted that merely-because none of the witnesses has attended the marriage of Munshi Ram with Smt. Anjana Bai, it cannot be said that no valid marriage was performed. Therefore, it cannot be said that Munshi Ram could not perform the second marriage without getting divorce from Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi. He submitted that merely-because none of the witnesses has attended the marriage of Munshi Ram with Smt. Anjana Bai, it cannot be said that no valid marriage was performed. Therefore in no circumstance the plaintiffs can be said to be the illegitimate children of Munshi Ram from Smt. Anjana Bai. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 15 of the Act, the plaintiffs are fully entitled to inherit the property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband being the heirs of husband. It cannot be said that the plaintiffs are not the heirs of Munshi Ram, as they have already inherited his property after his death. 15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 16. First of all, I am dealing with the second submission made by learned counsel for the appellant Though before the first appellate court, ‘the appellant challenged the finding of the trial Court only on the issue of the validity of the alleged Will and did not contest the finding recorded on other issues, but before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiffs did not lead any evidence to prove the alleged marriage between Munshi Ram and Smt. Anjana Bai. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the plaintiffs cannot be treated as legitimate son and daughters of Munshi Ram from Smt. Anjana Bai. According to the learned counsel, in absence of the proof of valid marriage between Munshi Ram and Smt. Anjana Bai, the children born to them are to be treated as illegitimate children and such illegitimate children are not entitled to succeed to the property of. Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi, who was legally wedded wife of Munshi Ram. Learned counsel argued that the illegitimate children cannot be treated as legal heirs of husband, as the word 'heirs' used in Sections 15(1) (b) and 15(2)(b) of the Act does not include the illegitimate children of husband 17. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the illegitimate children cannot be treated as legal heirs of husband, as the word 'heirs' used in Sections 15(1) (b) and 15(2)(b) of the Act does not include the illegitimate children of husband 17. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. In this case, on the pleadings of the parties, issue No.3 was framed to the effect as to whether the plaintiffs are not the son and daughters of Munshi Ram. The burden to prove this issue was placed on the defendant-appellant, as prior to the filing of the suit and after the death of Munshi Ram, a mutation with regard to 3/4th share of his land was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs being his son and daughters and mutation with regard to the remaining 1/4th share of his land was sanctioned’ in favour of Smt. Atma Devi, his first wife. The said mutation was not challenged by Smt. Atma Devi during her life time or by the defendant after her death. In order to prove that the plaintiffs are not the son and daughters of Munshi Ram, the defendant did not lead any cogent evidence, except the statements of Bach an Singh DW9, Mohinder Singh DW10, Sadhu Singh DW11 and Malkiat Singh DW12, who stated that Munshi Ram was issue less and he did not marry second time. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have placed on record the pedigree table Ex.P7, death entry of Anjana Bai Ex.P8; and the birth entries of two plaintiffs Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 and other evidence. The trial court, on the basis of the documentary evidence as well as the statements of Brij Mohan PW1, Kailash Chander PW8 and Chander Mohan PW9, while taking into consideration the earlier mutation sanctioned after the death of Munshi Ram, recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are son and daughters of Munshi Ram. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the evidence led by the defendant in this regard was not worthy of credit and on the other hand, the evidence led by the plaintiffs clearly prove that the plaintiffs are son and daughters of Munshi Ram from Smt. Anjana Bai. It was held that Munshi Ram and Smt. Anjana Bai lived as husband and wife. It was held that Munshi Ram and Smt. Anjana Bai lived as husband and wife. Before the first appellate court, the defendant-appellant did not challenge this finding. Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. In view of the said finding, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of Munshi Ram, were entitled to succeed the property of Smt. Atma Devi, a female Hindu dying intestate, under Section 15 of the Act, who inherited the property from her husband Munshi Ram. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the word ‘heirs’ used in Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the Act does not include the illegitimate children of husband cannot be accepted. Section 16 of the Act confers legitimacy to the children of void and voidable marriage. Even if it is taken that the marriage between Munshi Ram and Smt. Anjana Bai was not a valid marriage, even then the children born from such marriage are legally entitled to inherit the property of their parents as legitimate children. Since Smt. Atma Devi inherited 1/4th share in the suit property from Munisi Ram being his wife and after her death, the plaintiffs being legal heirs (son and daughters) of Munshi Ram are legally entitled to inherit the property of a Hindu female dying intence, who has inherited the said property from her husband under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(2)(b) of the Act, in absence of any issue of Smt. Atma Devi. Undisputedly, the appellant­defendant cannot inherit the suit property in preference to the plaintiffs under Section 15 of the Act, therefore, the defendant claimed the suit property only on the basis of the alleged Will. 18. Now, it has to be considered and decided as to whether the defendant has proved the due execution of the alleged Will by Smt. Atti @ Atma Devi beyond any suspicious circumstance. It is well settled, as has been held in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443, that a Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes Will from other documents. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes Will from other documents. Unlike other documents the Will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the departed testator. Therefore, it is for the propounder of the Will to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he/she understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his/her signature to the document of his/her own free will. It is also well settled that in case, the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances i.e. the alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful; that condition of the testator’s mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; evidence adduced may not succeed in removing, the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the Will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or the Will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator’s free will and mind; and the propounder himself/herself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will. In such cases, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. It is also well settled that presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy and unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last Will of the testator. It is also well settled that what circumstances would be regarded as suspicious circumstances cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each case. It is also well settled that what circumstances would be regarded as suspicious circumstances cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each case. Thus, a propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the propounder must remove the said suspicious from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. 19. In the present case, both the courts below, after considering and appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that defendant No.1 has failed to prove the due arid valid execution of the Will, as the testator at the relevant time was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. It has also been found that execution of the alleged Will was surrounded by many suspicious circumstances, which could not be removed by defendant No.1 by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence. 20. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of power under Section 100 of the CPC cannot interfere in the finding of fact recorded by the courts below, except if it is established that the said finding of fact is perverse or contrary to the evidence available on the record. In the present case, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that when the alleged Will was executed on 7.9.1974 and subsequently registered on 6.12.1974, Smt. Atma Devi was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. The Courts below have arrived on this conclusion on the basis of certain facts, which have been proved on record. Firstly, that Smt. Atma Devi was throughout living in Village Killa Raipur, the village of her husband; she was being looked after and maintained by the family members of Munshi Ram and that plaintiff Chander used to send her some money through bank. It has also come in evidence that in the month of November/December, 1974, when Smt. Atma Devi was taken from village Killa Raipur to village Sihan Daud by her brother (father, of defendant No.1), she was ill and she was taken to Village Sihan Daud on a cot. This fact was proved by the statements of few witnesses of the plaintiffs and admission by DW1 Salamat Rai. This fact was proved by the statements of few witnesses of the plaintiffs and admission by DW1 Salamat Rai. On the other hand, defendant No.1 pleaded that Smt. Atma Devi was residing in village Sihan Daud for the last more than 15/20 years. All his witnesses have also so stated in their statements. This fact was also so mentioned in the Will. But this stand taken by the defendant and the statements of the witnesses produced by him, have not been believed by both the courts below and a finding of fact has been recorded that throughout her life, Smt. Atma Devi lived in Village Killa Raipur and at the fag end of her life, she was taken to village Sihan Daud on a cot by her brother, when she was ill. There is another fact, which also creates a suspicious circumstance which has not been removed. It has come in evidence that at the time of execution of the alleged Will, Smt. Atma Devi was aged about 80 years, but in the Will, her age was mentioned as 70 years. This discrepancy in the age mentioned in the Will was not satisfactorily explained. This fact further raised suspicion in the mind of the Court that this wrong fact was mentioned in the Will in order to show that Smt. Atma Devi was in a good state of health. 21. Further, in this case, the appellant could not lead any satisfactory evidence to prove that Atma Devi was residing with the appellant during the period 1960 to 1976 and he rendered any service to her. There is another strong suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will regarding which no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. Thumb impression mark ‘X’ has been affixed on the Will EX.D1. The petition writer Salamat Rai admitted that this thumb impression was not got affixed by him. He also admitted that it was in a different ink. This fact also creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will. 22. Thumb impression mark ‘X’ has been affixed on the Will EX.D1. The petition writer Salamat Rai admitted that this thumb impression was not got affixed by him. He also admitted that it was in a different ink. This fact also creates doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will. 22. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that by examining DW1 Salamt Rai (he scribe of the Will) and two marginal witness i.e. DW2 Joginder Singh and DW3 Ishar Singh, who have stated that at the time of execution of the Will, the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind, the appellant has proved the execution of the will, which was subsequently registered by the Sub Registrar, cannot be accepted. In my view, the initial burden lying on the defendant has not been discharged by examining the aforesaid witnesses, particularly when execution of the Will; is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In the present case, Smt. Anjana Bai, when she was at the fag end of her life and was ill, was taken from village Killa Raipur to village Sihan Daud on a cot and soon thereafter, the Will was allegedly executed on 7.9.1974 and was got registered on 6.12.1974 and thereafter, she died on 8.1.1975. It has come in evidence that the Will was registered by the Sub Registrar on 6.12.1974 by visiting the village. It has not been explained as to why the Will was registered in the village and not in the office of the Sub Registrar. From this fact, it appears that on the day of registration of the Will, Smt. Anjana Bai was not in a position to move to the office of the Sub Registrar. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Will was attested by DWs Joginder Singh and Ishar Singh, who are the respectable persons of village Sihan Daud, as Joginder Singh was Lambardar and Ishar Singh was member Panchayat. Since both these witnesses have categorically stated that Smt. Anjana Bai was in a sound and disposing state of mind, therefore, their statements should be given weight by the courts” below, which have been wrongly ignored on the ground that their statements are not trust worthy. I do not find any force in this contention. Since both these witnesses have categorically stated that Smt. Anjana Bai was in a sound and disposing state of mind, therefore, their statements should be given weight by the courts” below, which have been wrongly ignored on the ground that their statements are not trust worthy. I do not find any force in this contention. The appreciation of evidence by the courts below and then coming to a conclusion regarding a fact is not to be interfered in the second appeal. Even otherwise, in view of the aforesaid facts regarding the illness of Smt. Anjana Bai, which have been proved on record, the courts below have rightly not believed the statements of these two witnesses. 24. I also do not find any force in another contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant that by leading the aforesaid evidence, the appellant has discharged the initial burden placed upon him and thereafter, to prove that on the day of execution of the Will, Smt. Anjana Bai was ill, the plaintiffs did not lead any medical evidence. As earlier mentioned, it is for the propounder of the Will to dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The courts below have come to the conclusion that execution of the Will is surrounded by many suspicious circumstances. Those circumstances have been discussed in detail in the light of the evidence available on the record. In my opinion, in the present case, both the courts below have come to the aforesaid conclusion while recording the finding that the defendant has failed to prove the execution of the valid Will and to remove all the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the court. Therefore, the said finding of fact is not to be interfered in the second appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal (RSA No.473 of 1981) and the same is liable to be dismissed. 25. RSANo.2726 of 1983 has been filed by mortgagees of Munshi Ram against the judgments and decree passed by both the courts below, whereby their suit for declaring the order dated 3.2.1981, passed by the Collector, Ludhiana, under the Punjab Redemption of Mortgage Act, ordering the redemption’ of part of the suit property ‘en an application filed by son and daughters of Munshi Ram, as illegal, null and void and inoperative against them, was dismissed. The plaintiffs in that suit contested the said order on the ground that since Kailash Chander, Smt. Indra and Smt Tara are not the legal heirs of Munshi Ram, therefore, they are not competent to file application for redemption of the mortgage. Their objections raised before the Collector were rejected, and it was found that Kailash Chander, Smt. Indra and Smt Tara are the legal heirs of Munshi Ram and they are entitled to maintain the said application. In the civil suit, same question was raised and both the courts below, while taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that Kailash Chander, Smt.Indra and Smt. Tara are the son and daughters of Munshi Ram. The said finding of fact was recorded on the basis of overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record. On the other hand, mortgagees only relied upon the statements of Nirmal Singh and Ram Rachhpal to the effect that the aforesaid persons are not the son and daughters of Munshi Ram. Their statements were not believed. Both the court below recorded a finding of fact that Kailash Chander, Smt.Indra and Smt. Tara were legal heirs of Munshi Ram and they were fully competent to file an application for redemption of mortgage, therefore, no illegality was found in the said order. Though no one has appeared on behalf of the mortgagees, but after going through the impugned judgments and decree, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact. This finding was also recorded in civil suit filed by Kailash Chander, Smt. Indra and Smt. Tara (RSA No.473 of 1981) in which the present plaintiffs are defendants No.2 to 11, which is also binding onthe plaintiffs-appellants. 26. In view of the above, both these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. --------------------------