JUDGMENT : Both the connected appeals were heard together. 2. M.A. 136 of 2006 arises out of Title Suit No. 2 of 2005 which arose from Probate Case No. 3 of 2002 filed by Parikshit Choubey, Brij Raj Chobey, Tirath Raj Chobey and Yugal Kishore Choubey-appellants-(hereinafter referred to as Parikshit and others) against Din Dayal Choubey, Dina Nath Choubey and Dhananjay Kumar Choubey-respondents (hereinafter referred as Din Dayal and others): for granting probate in their favour on the basis of the purported Will dated 15.6.2001 of Most. Gati Kuar. 3. M.A. No. 223 of 2006, on the other hand, arises out of Title Suit No. 1 of 2005 which arose from Probate Case No. 6 of 2001 filed by Din Dayal and others-appellants, against Parikshit and others-respondents, for granting probate in their favour on the basis of the purported Will dated 10.4.2001 of Most. Gati Kuar. 4. Parikshit and others contended that the said Will dated 15.6.2001 was executed in their favour and the Will dated 10.4.2001 said to have been executed in favour of Din Dayal and others was forged and fabricated document. Similarly, Din Dayal and others claimed that Will dated 10.4.2001 was executed in their favour and the Will dated 15.6.2001 said to have been executed in favour of Parikshit and others is forged fabricated. 5. Both the cases were heard together by the learned District Judge, Garhwa and were dismissed by common judgment dated 7.3.2006, against which both these appeals have been preferred. 6. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing in MA 136 of 2006 assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. Mr. Jaiprakash, learned senior counsel, appearing in M.A. 223 of 2006, relying on Paragraph-8 of the judgment reported in (2006) 1 SCC 519 -Mathew Oommen v. Suseela Mathew submitted that P.W. 2, was the scribe, who could also be an attesting witness and therefore it has been wrongly held that there was only one attesting witness. 7. It is settled position that as a Will changes the mode of succession and may reduce or deprive the share of natural heir, it has to be seen that there is no doubt with regard to the genuinity of the Will. The appellants were required to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the Wills were genuine and the executor was mentally fit to understand and execute the wills. The appellants were required to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the Wills were genuine and the executor was mentally fit to understand and execute the wills. But the learned trial court rightly held that the evidences of the parties were not reliable; and that Most. Gati Kuar was aged about 80-85 years and she was not mentally fit, at the time of execution of purported Wills, and has rightly expressed serious doubt about both the Wills. It was also noticed that Partition Suit No. 9 of 1994 was pending, but the appellants wanted to become owner of the property of Gati Kuar on the basis of the forged and fabricated Wills. There is no dispute that scribe of the Will can also be an attesting witness but in Mathew Oommen v. Suseela Mathew (Supra), the scribe clearly said that he was the scribe of the Will and was an attesting witness also, but in the present case P.W. 2, in M.A. 223 of 2006 simply said that he was scribe. He did not say that he was also an attesting witness. After considering the entire matter, in my opinion no grounds are made out for entertaining these appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed. However, no costs.