JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. Respondents 1&2 alongwith one Kishnu deceased filed a suit in the learned trial Court alleging that the Will dated 24.3.1983 allegedly executed by their father Sh.Bhupu in favour of Punu Ram was a result of fraud, deception, undue influence and not binding upon them. 2. The learned trial Court held that the Will has been proved in accordance with law and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed an appeal and the learned lower Appellate Court held that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and therefore decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 3. The only question which arises is whether the Will has been proved or not. This is a pure question of fact and no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the appeal. However, I have heard Sh.R.S. Jamalta who has strenuously urged that the Will has been proved to have been executed by late Sh.Bhupu and he relies mainly on the statement of DW-1 Ganesh Dass who retired as Sub Registrar and who has stated that he had explained the Will to the testator and thereafter he had registered the same. He, in cross examination, clearly admitted that he himself did not know Bhupu but the person who appeared before him was identified by Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate. 4. It is true that the Sub Registrar has stated that the Will was read over and explained to Bhupu who after understanding the same had again affixed his signatures on the Will in the presence of the Registrar. However, I find that the Will in question is a typed Will and the same has been typed in English. The Will has been drafted by Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate but there is no mention in the Will that it was read over and explained to Bhupu. The front page of the Will is dated 15th March, 1983 and allegedly contains the signatures of Bhupu. It is witnessed by Dassu Ram and Kalu Ram. Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate died and his signatures on the Will have been proved by his junior. 5. DW-6 Dassu Ram is the only witness to the Will who has been produced in the Court. This witness states that the Will was got drafted from a lawyer and he alongwith other witness Kalu Ram had gone to Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate and Sant Ram typist had typed the Will. 5. DW-6 Dassu Ram is the only witness to the Will who has been produced in the Court. This witness states that the Will was got drafted from a lawyer and he alongwith other witness Kalu Ram had gone to Sh.Mohan Singh, Advocate and Sant Ram typist had typed the Will. Then he and Kalu had signed the Will. Bhupu and Kalu had also signed in his presence. Then they went to the Tehsil office where the Will was presented to the Sub Registrar who registered the same. However, the Will, as mentioned above, is dated 15.3.1983 whereas it has been registered on 24.3.1983. There is a gap of 9 days between the two dates. Thus, the story of Dassu that the Will was prepared and registered on the same day is apparently false. 6. It would also be pertinent to mention that though exclusion of natural heirs by itself may not be sufficient ground to hold that the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances but when a person is excluding his other children there must be some explanation in the Will in this regard. The Will is totally silent with regard to other family members. These are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The Courts below have taken a view which is legally possible. The finding of the learned lower Appellate Court is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.