JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2005, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 37-NL/13 of 1999. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs' for convenience sake) instituted a suit that they were co-owners to the extent of share in the suit property detailed as under: "(a) Khewat/Khatauni NO,. 20/25, bearing Khasra No. 975 (9b-6b) and 976 (1b-2b), pertaining to and situated in the area of village Khillian, Pargana Gulerwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., as entered in the Jamabandi for the year, 1989-90. (aa) Khewat/Khatauni NO. 19/24, bearing Khasra No. 789 (0-2b) 806(0-19B), 960(0-19b), 1093(1b-4b), 1109 (1b-16b), 11 (1b-1b) & 1132 (0- 18b) total land measuring 6 bighas 19 biswas, pertaining to and situated in the are of village Khillian, H.B. No. 28, Pargana Gullerwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1989-90. (b) Khewat/Khatauni No. 14/14, bearing Khasra Nos. 90(5b-12b) 93(2b-13b), 94 (7b-7b), 95(4b-10b), 96(0-10b), 98 (2b-12b), 99(1b-8b) 100(1b- 11b), 101(1b-7b), 102(5b-4b) total land measuring 32 bighas 14 biswas, pertaining to and situated in the area of village Gulabpura, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1988-89. (c ) Khewat/Khatauni NO. 8/9, bearing Khasra Nos. 24(10b-13b), 533/95(3b-10b), 99(4b-6b), total land measuring 18 bighas 9 biswas, AND Khewat/Khatauni No. 9/10, bearing Khasra Nos.103(1-3b), 122 (1b-0b), total land measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas AND, Khewat/Khatauni No. 51/52, bearing Khasra Nos. 96 (2b-11b), 98(0- 19b), 100(3b-16b), total land measuring 7 bighas 6 biswas, AND Khewat/Khatauni NO. 52/53, bearing Khasra Nos. 101 (0-19b)102 (3b-11b), total land measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas, all pertaining to and situated in the area of village Souri Gujjran, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88. (d) Khewat/Khatauni NO. 192/286, bearing Khasra Nos. 950(12, 24 sq. Mtrs.), 951 (76.76 Sq. Mtrs), pertaining to and situated in the area of Purana Nalagarh, as entered in the Jamabandi Misal Haquiat Bandobast for the year 1980-81. 3. According to the plaintiffs, Roda Ram son of Shri Thakru, was the common ancestor of parties. (d) Khewat/Khatauni NO. 192/286, bearing Khasra Nos. 950(12, 24 sq. Mtrs.), 951 (76.76 Sq. Mtrs), pertaining to and situated in the area of Purana Nalagarh, as entered in the Jamabandi Misal Haquiat Bandobast for the year 1980-81. 3. According to the plaintiffs, Roda Ram son of Shri Thakru, was the common ancestor of parties. Roda Ram being the father of the plaintiffs and appellants-defendants No. 1 to 3 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants" for convenience sake), was Karta of joint Hindu un-divided family. Defendant No. 3 Nauria has relinquished all his right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1, 2 and their father Roda Ram. The suit land as described in sub para (a) and (aa) situate in village Khillian, Pargana Gulerwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P. is ancestral joint Hindu family property. Shri Roda Ram held total land measuring 40 bighas 10 biswas in village Khillian at the time of his death and the plaintiffs and defendants being sons are the coparceners in the said ancestral and coparcenary property. Shri Roda Ram inherited total land measuring 45 bighas 7 biswas from the grand-father of the plaintiff as coparcener and the said land was in the name and hands of Roda as Karta of joint Hindu family of the parties during his life time. Shri Roda Ram sold land measuring 4 bighas 9 biswas on 25.06.1965 for Rs. 2000/- out of ancestral property in village Khillian vide sale deed No. 188, dated 26.06.1965 and purchased land described in sub para (b) above in village Gulabpura, Tehsil Nalagarh from sale proceeds and income of the joint Hindu property and the earnings contributed by the plaintiffs towards joint Hindu family funds. The suit land described in sub para (c) above was purchased by Shri Roda Ram Karta out of joint Hindu family funds and earnings contributed by the plaintiffs in joint Hindu family on 27.05.1967 for Rs. 6500/- and later on he paid Rs. 1500/- to Custodian Department as consideration amount of the aforesaid land as karta of joint Hindu family in village Souri Gujjran. The suit land situate in village Souri Gujjran and Gulab Pura is also ancestral and coparcenary property of plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2. The land situate in Purana Nalagarh was also purchased by Shri Roda Ram. 1500/- to Custodian Department as consideration amount of the aforesaid land as karta of joint Hindu family in village Souri Gujjran. The suit land situate in village Souri Gujjran and Gulab Pura is also ancestral and coparcenary property of plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2. The land situate in Purana Nalagarh was also purchased by Shri Roda Ram. Shri Roda Ram died in the year 1969 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 as coparcener's and defendant No. 5 as daughter. He never executed any will during his life time and defendants No. 1 and 2 forged a document alleged to be the will of deceased Roda Ram. Defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 wrongly got sanctioned the mutation of inheritance in their names of the suit land situate in village Gulab Pura, Souri Gujjaran and Khillian. According to the plaintiffs, the said mutations were wrong and the plaintiffs are co-owners and co-sharers to the extent of share each in the land in suit situate in village Khillian. The land measuring 6 bighas 19 biswas recorded in the name of defendant No. 3 was also ancestral and coparcenary property of the parties as defendant No. 3 has renounced the world and was known as Sri Sri 108 Sri Mauj Gir Chela Baba Mahant Gur. The suit land in Purana Nalagarh described in sub para (d) was purchased by karta Roda Ram and the defendant No. 1 illegally got entered the land in suit in his name. Plaintiffs came to know about the wrong entries when they got the notice of partition application filed by defendant No. 1 in respect of the suit land situate in village Gulab Pura. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiffs Madan Lal and Daulat Ram, predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs had filed this suit for declaration that they are co-owners to the extent of share each in the suit land and the entries in revenue record are wrong, illegal, null and void along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiffs from the suit land and in alternative, prayed for grant of decree for possession of the suit land. 4. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1, 6 to 9. 4. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1, 6 to 9. According to them, Shri Roda Ram was sole owner of the suit land and the suit land situate in village Khillian was not the ancestral and coparcenary property. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2 were not the coparcener's in the property. Shri Roda Ram inherited the land in suit and the land was also not purchased after sale of suit land in village Gulab Pura nor the said land was purchased from family funds. According to the defendants, the suit land in village Gulab Pura was purchased with the funds provided by defendant No. 1. Shri Roda Ram was absolute owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs applied for partition of joint land and resolution No. 11 was passed during consolidation proceedings. Shri Roda Ram had executed his valid will dated 15.10.1967. He had bequeathed land measuring 20 bighas in favour of defendant No. 4 and land measuring 12 bighas 12 biswas was bequeathed in favour of defendant No. 1 out of total land measuring 32 bighas 14 biswas situate in village Gulab Pura, out of which, 2 biswas land was inherited by the plaintiffs, defendants No. 1 to 3 and defendant No. 5 in equal shares vide mutation No. 108 sanctioned for the estate of Roda Ram situate in village Gulab Pura. Shri Roda Ram deceased vide will bequeathed share in favour of defendant No. 1 and share in favour of defendant No. 2 and mutations were entered and sanctioned in respect of his estate in village Souri Gujjran. The said will also provided bequest in favour of defendant No. 1 of 10-16 bighas of land situate in village Khillian. The defendant No. 1 provided funds to his father Roda Ram to purchase land from Smt. Maltu, who had mortgaged her land for Rs. 700/-. The mutation was attested in Jalsa aam. The plaintiffs had not raised any objection for so many years and are not entitled to maintain the suit. The defendant No. 2 was in cultivating possession of land measuring 12 bighas 13 biswas in village Gulab Pura. The defendant No. 1 raised construction without any objection and had spent Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 had also gifted land in favour of defendant No. 3 for 'Sanyas Ashram' and has spent Rs. The defendant No. 2 was in cultivating possession of land measuring 12 bighas 13 biswas in village Gulab Pura. The defendant No. 1 raised construction without any objection and had spent Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 had also gifted land in favour of defendant No. 3 for 'Sanyas Ashram' and has spent Rs. 70,000/- on construction and lot of money in improving the land in village Souri Gujjran. He had spent Rs. 40,000/- to raise and protect orchard in village Gulab Pura. He had dug a well in village Khillian. He had also raised construction in Purana Nalagarh in the year 1963 and had become owner by way of adverse possession. He had planted orchard trees and fixed barbed wire around land measuring 10 bighas 8 biswas comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 20/25 Khasra No. 975 and 976 situate in village Khillian and irrigation thereof by contributing to the extent of ? share. He had also raised construction of one room over Khasra No. 100 over 1-11 bighas of land situate in village Gulab Pura and raised construction of pucca residential house consisting of 4 rooms, varrandah, one kitchen, latrine, gober gas plant on 32-8 bighas of land in village Souri Gujjran. Defendant No. 4 had also gifted 4-14 bighas of land situate in village Khillian in favour of defendants No. 6 to 9. 5. The defendants have also filed counter-claim, claiming that they were owners of half share in land measuring 91 bighas 15 biswas, i.e., i) Land measuring 30 bighas presently comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 15 and 16, Khatauni Nos. 15 to 17, bearing Khasra Nos. 72(0-17), 73 (1-2), 76(2-14), 77(3-6), 78(3-7), 79(3-0), 80 min (609), 80 min (9-0) and 71 (9-5) and; (ii) Land measuring 52 bighas 15 biswas, presently comprising in Khewat/Khatauni Nos. 39/54 and 55, bearing Khasra Nos./Kitas-13. 6. Plaintiffs contested the counter claim and averred that other plaintiffs and defendants had no interest in the land measuring 45 bighas and 52 bighas 15 biswas situate in village Gulab Pura. The said land was self-acquired property of Madan Lal. Defendant No. 1 had raised house in village Gujjran about 9- 10 years back. The land measuring 48 bighas was purchased from Inder Jeet Singh for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- on 11.09.1970 by Shri Yog Raj, Som Raj, Vishwa Nath and Ganesh Dutt, all sons of Madan Lal. The said land was self-acquired property of Madan Lal. Defendant No. 1 had raised house in village Gujjran about 9- 10 years back. The land measuring 48 bighas was purchased from Inder Jeet Singh for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/- on 11.09.1970 by Shri Yog Raj, Som Raj, Vishwa Nath and Ganesh Dutt, all sons of Madan Lal. The land measuring 52 bighas 15 biswas was purchased by Shri Som Raj for a consideration of Rs. 26,375/- from Inderjit. The land measuring 39 bighas and 52 bighas 15 biswas was not ancestral. The land was acquired by defendants No. 10 to 13 out of their own funds. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 03.10.1996. The learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh decreed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs were co-owners to the extent of ?th share each in the properties as described in para No. 1 of the judgment and that the revenue record in favour of defendants is not binding on the plaintiffs and mutation No. 108 pertaining to village Gulabpura, mutation No. 417 pertaining to village Khillian and mutation No. 191 pertaining to the properties at village Sauri Gujjaran are having no effect qua the rights of the plaintiffs with the consequential relief of joint possession. 7. Defendants/appellants, namely, Tilak Ram, Ashok Kumar, Ram Kumar, Bhubhneshwar Dutt and Triembkeshwar Dutt filed the Civil Appeal No. 37-NL/13 of 1999 against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1999, passed by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. He dismissed the same on 29.09.2005. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 8. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 27.12.2005. As per order dated 27.12.2005, substantial questions of law, as detailed in the grounds of appeal, arose for determination. However, it is clarified that the appellants have framed as many as 7 substantial questions of law along with the memorandum of appeal. 9. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond the period of limitation. He then argued that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed the evidence as far as the issues pertaining to the partition, Will, ancestral property and counter claim preferred by the defendants are concerned. 10. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate have supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 11. He then argued that both the Courts below have mis-read and mis-construed the evidence as far as the issues pertaining to the partition, Will, ancestral property and counter claim preferred by the defendants are concerned. 10. Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate have supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 11. The Court will first advert to the question whether Shri Roda Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the parties had partitioned the suit or not, as claimed by the defendants in the month of March/April, 1967. 12. DW-4 Tilak Ram has testified that his father has partitioned the property and the property at Khillian was transferred to the plaintiffs and witnesses Mal Ram, Banarsi, Churah, Krishan Dutt, Sanokh, Shiv Ram and Ratna were present at the time of partition. However, only Shri Banarsi Dass (DW-5) has been examined by the defendants. 13. Now, as far as Shri Churah Ram is concerned, he has been examined as DW-13 to prove the Will Ex. DW-11/A, dated 15.10.1967. According to Banarsi Dass, the partition was effected and the will was executed as per the partition and defendant No. 1 was allotted area measuring 10 Bighas. He has not given the description of the land allotted to other persons. According to him 7 bighas of land was transferred, but he could not tell the Khasra numbers. He has not disclosed whether the partition was reduced into writing or not. According to him, the land has been divided equally. However, in village Gulabpura, only 0-2 biswas was allotted to the plaintiffs and at Khillian, land was transferred in favour of five sons and not the other land. Tilak Ram was allotted share and Ram Krishan was allotted share in village Sauri Gujjaran. Thus, the statement of this witness has rightly been discarded by both the Courts below. There is no tangible evidence placed on record by the defendants that the partition was reduced into writing or it was acted upon by presenting the will before the revenue authorities. There is no evidence placed on record that on the basis of alleged partition, the revenue authorities were also approached. In view of this, the defendants have failed to prove that the land was partitioned by Roda Ram. 14. Now, the Court will advert to the nature of the suit property. There is no evidence placed on record that on the basis of alleged partition, the revenue authorities were also approached. In view of this, the defendants have failed to prove that the land was partitioned by Roda Ram. 14. Now, the Court will advert to the nature of the suit property. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1955-56, Raja Sahib Bahadur was recorded as Ala Malik and Shri Thakru has been shown to be the Adna Malik of the land measuring 93 bighas 4 biswas in village Khillian. He has been shown to be the owner in possession of the land measuring 117 bighas 1 biswas in village Khillian. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 Samvat, Puran and Roda have been shown to be in possession to the extent of share in village Khillian of the land measuring 42 Bighas 10 Biswas and Shri Roda Ram has been shown to be Maliq Adna and Raja Sahan Bahadur has been shown to be Maliq Ala. According to Ex. P-4, the mutation has been attested in favour of Puran, Roda, Brij Lal and Tota son of Thakur pertaining to the land measuring 109 Bighas 18 Biswas. ? share out of the land measuring 19 Biswas, was mutated in favour of the sons of deceased. Thereafter, Roda Ram has been shown to be the co-owner in the column of Maliq Adna. As per Ex. P-10, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, he has been shown to be the sole owner of the land measuring 45 Bighas 7 Biswas in village Khillian. He has also been recorded to be the owner in possession in village Khillian of the land measuring 40 Bighas 18 Biswas as per the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, Ex. P-18. Shri Roda Ram has become owner in possession of the suit land after enforcement of abolition of Papsu Ala Malkiat Rights Act. Thus, both the Courts below have correctly come to the conclusion that the property situate in village Khillian was self acquired property and it was not ancestral and coparcenary property. Shri Roda Ram had become owner in possession of land situate in village Gulab Pura and Sauri Gujjran. He has purchased land measuring 32-14 bighas for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- from owner in village Gulab Pura on the basis of sale deed dated 22.05.1965 as per Ex. P-19. Shri Roda Ram had become owner in possession of land situate in village Gulab Pura and Sauri Gujjran. He has purchased land measuring 32-14 bighas for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- from owner in village Gulab Pura on the basis of sale deed dated 22.05.1965 as per Ex. P-19. He has also purchased land measuring 11-16 bighas for a consideration of Rs. 6,500/- vide sale deed Ex. PW-3/D, dated 27.05.1967 situate in village Souri Gujjran. There is no material on record that defendants No. 1 and 2 had made any contribution for purchasing this land. Shri Roda Ram had also sold land measuring 4-9 bighas situate in village Khillian for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- on 25.06.1965 vide Ex. PW-3/A. 15. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the Will dated 15.10.1967, Ex. DW-11/A has been validly executed and the findings recorded by both the Courts below that it was shrouded by suspicious circumstances are liable to be set aside. The Will in question has been scribed by Ram Singh. According to him, he has scribed the Will at the instance of Shri Roda Ram in the presence of Shri Mal Ram and Churah Ram. Shri Roda Ram put his thumb mark on the will in his presence and in the presence of three witnesses and the witnesses also thumb marked and signed the will in the presence of testator. The original will has not been placed on record by the defendants. According to them, the Will was destroyed as per Ex. D-5, certificate. They have not led any secondary evidence to prove the will. 16. DW-13 Shri Churah Ram has testified the execution of the will by Shri Roda Ram and scribed by Shri Ram Singh (DW- 11) in the presence of Shiv Ram and Mal Ram attesting witnesses. Shri Ram Singh has scribed the will. Thus, he could not be treated as an attesting witness. He has put his signature as scribe and not as attesting witness. 17. According to DW-11, he was called to his house by Roda Ram. He has scribed the will at Nalagarh. Thereafter, he went to the house of Roda Ram in village Khillian, where he and the witnesses signed and thumb marked the will. If the testator had desired to execute the will, he could have executed the same at Nalagarh on the same day. He has scribed the will at Nalagarh. Thereafter, he went to the house of Roda Ram in village Khillian, where he and the witnesses signed and thumb marked the will. If the testator had desired to execute the will, he could have executed the same at Nalagarh on the same day. Thereafter, it was taken to the witnesses at village Khillian. The will has been written at Nalagarh in the presence of marginal witnesses. Why the will was written at Nalagarh and taken to village Khillian has not been explained satisfactorily. Moreover, there are contradictions in the statement of DW-13 Churah Ram. He has stated that the will was written in the presence of witnesses in village Khillian, where it was executed in the presence of witnesses and later on stated that it was first written at Nalagarh and thereafter executed at village Khillian. 18. Shri Roda Ram, as per the evidence was well conversant with Urdu, Sanskrit and Hindi languages. However, in Ex. PW-11/A, he has put his thumb impression. Why he has put his thumb impression when he was well conversant with three languages has not been explained. DW-11 Ram Singh has though tried to explain that since Roda Ram was not well and his hands were trembling, he put his thumb mark on the same. This version of Ram Singh (DW-11) cannot be accepted. There is an endorsement in the will dated 03.05.1968, whereby the same was produced by Shri Roda Ram before the Sarpanch. DW-13 Churah Ram has not stated anything about this fact that S/Shri Mal Ram and Shiv Ram are dead. Similarly, Ram Singh has not stated that the will was produced before the Sarpanch. DW-11 at the time of scribing the will was only 17 years' old. The will was written in the absence of the witnesses at Nalagarh and executed at village Khillian. DW-13 has also deposed that when he was called, no-one was present there and he thumb marked the will. It is also not explained why the legal heirs of first degree have been excluded in the will. The defendants have failed to prove the valid execution of the will dated 15.10.1967 and both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 19. It is also not explained why the legal heirs of first degree have been excluded in the will. The defendants have failed to prove the valid execution of the will dated 15.10.1967 and both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 19. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, (2006) 13 SCC 433 have held that it is for the propounder to remove suspicious circumstances by leading cogent evidence. Their Lordships have further held that it has also to be proved that testator had signed out of his free will having a sound disposition of mind and not a feeble and debilitated mind, understanding well the nature and effect thereof. Their Lordships have held as under: "32. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the mode and manner in which the execution of an unprivileged Will is to be proved. Section 68 postulates the mode and manner in which proof of execution of document is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of Will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A Will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable. 33. The burden of proof that the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the Will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of Will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. [See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784]. Subject to above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document." 20. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others, (2006) 13 SCC 449 have held that while arriving at a finding as to whether the will was duly executed, the Court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the particular case. Their Lordships have held as under: "9. Akkayamma was not a highly educated lady. She received only primary education. She could only put her signature. She was otherwise worldly. She was of miserly nature. She was originally a resident of Arconam. She knew the importance of registration of document as only a couple of days before her death, i.e., 29th September, 1968 she executed two deeds of settlement in favour of Respondents. We need not go into the question as to whether Plaintiffs-Respondents have sufficiently proved love and affection of Akkayamma for them, but, when a question comes up for consideration before a court in regard to grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed thereto, it is trite that all circumstances should be taken into consideration. It may be true, as has been opined by the Division Bench of the High Court, that proof of execution of the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act would be a pre-requisite, but, to take the same in evidence it is also trite that while arriving at a finding as to whether the Will has duly been executed or not, the court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The Will in question was executed on 23.3.1968. It was an unregistered one. She was ordinarily not a resident of District of Chittoor. She used to visit the said place occasionally. She did not know intimately the scribe of the Will, namely, P.W.1-Shri V. Thyagarajan. He was a teacher. There was no reason for Akkayamma to walk to his residence and ask him to scribe the Will. If P.W.1 was not a professional scribe, there may not be any particular reason as to why Akkayamma had chosen him for the said job. In the event of suspicion in regard to the genuineness or otherwise, the Will must be proved to have been executed in accordance with law establishing that the same has been done in presence of at least two witnesses. Although, the court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in this behalf should be followed. The issue necessarily involves due appreciation of evidence. We may notice that in the Will Akkayamma described herself as the father's wife of Shri C.D. Jaya Singh. What is meant by that is not known. While describing herself as the father's wife of C.D. Jaya Singh, it was stipulated that she had been having that status for the last 40 years. Our attention has been drawn to the findings of the learned District Judge by the learned counsel for Respondents that Akkayamma developed love and affection not only for Jai Singh, but also for his children through his first wife and particularly, the 3rd plaintiff who was his daughter. If that be the position, then why she had not bequeathed any property in her favour is difficult to understand. If that be the position, then why she had not bequeathed any property in her favour is difficult to understand. The learned District Judge enumerated nine circumstances which, according to him, were relevant for considering the proof of due execution and attestation of the Will in question, which are as under : 1. Akkayamma lived with Jai Singh, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4 at Arkonam in Tamilnadu while the plaintiffs lived at Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh till Jai Singh and she died. 2. There are indications to show that the plaintiffs were against Akkayamma to some extent when the second plaintiff filed a suit for partition on the ground that Jai Singh squandered the property after he developed contact with Akkayamma. 3. There was no special reason for love and affection between them except that Akkayamma had no children. There was no reason for Akkayamma in particular to choose first plaintiff to bequeath the schedule properties ignoring all other similarly placed persons like plaintiffs 2 and 3. 4. Piecemeal disposal of her properties at different stages and different types of documents Exs. A.1, B.24 and B.25, namely, settlement deed looks unnatural. 5. Akkayamma leaving registered documents Exs. B.24 and B.25 just three day prior to her death as against unregistered will six months prior to her death looks suspicious. 6. The will and settlement deeds almost read similar with same intentions consequently leading to a serious doubt. 7. The signature of Akkayamma on Ex.A.1 as Akkayamma Chevralu for the first time as against her usual signature on many documents including the settlement deeds Ex. B.24 and B.25 coming out just three days prior to her death with signature as Akkayamma speaks of something unnatural in the conduct of her. 8. The omission to mention the execution of Ex.A.1 will or the execution of such property in Exs. B.24 and B.25 is a strong circumstance leaving a serious suspicion on the conduct of Akkayamma. 9. The contents of Ex.A.1, which are conditional and contingent, appear to be unnatural." 14. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides: "63. Execution of unprivileged wills. * * * (a) the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. 9. The contents of Ex.A.1, which are conditional and contingent, appear to be unnatural." 14. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides: "63. Execution of unprivileged wills. * * * (a) the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (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 acknowledgement 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." Proof of a Will shall strictly be in terms of the above mentioned provisions. 15. It is, however, well settled that compliance of statutory requirements itself is not sufficient as would appear from the discussions hereinafter made. 23. Each case, however, must be determined in the fact situation obtaining therein. 21. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Apoline D' Souza v. John D' Souza, (2007) 7 SCC 225 have held that section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the mode and manner in which execution of the will is to be proved. Their Lordships have further held that proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory requirement. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the mode and manner in which execution of the will is to be proved. Proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory requirement. Attestation is sought to be proved by PW-2 only. Both the daughters of the testatrix were nuns. No property, therefore, could be bequeathed in their favour. In fact one of them had expired long back. Proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory requirement. Attestation is sought to be proved by PW-2 only. Both the daughters of the testatrix were nuns. No property, therefore, could be bequeathed in their favour. In fact one of them had expired long back. Relation of the testatrix with the respondent admittedly was very cordial. Appellant before us has not been able to prove that she had been staying with the testatrix since 1986 and only on that count she was made a beneficiary thereof. The will was full of suspicious circumstances. PW-2 categorically stated that the will was drafted before her coming to the residence of the testatrix and she had only proved her signature as a witness to the execution of the will but the document was a handwritten one. The original will is typed in Kannada, although the blanks were filled up with English letters. There is no evidence to show that the contents of the will were read over and explained to the testatrix. PW-2 was not known to her. Why was she called and who called her to attest the will is shrouded in mystery. Her evidence is not at all satisfactory in regard to the proper frame of mind of the testatrix. There were several cuttings and over writings also in the will. 20. The ratio of the said decision does not assist the appellant, as the mode and manner of proof of due execution of a will indisputably will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is for the propounder of the will to remove the suspicious circumstances, which has not been done in this case." 22. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Singh and others v. Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh, (2008) 14 SCC 754 have held that when genuineness of a will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing, if any. Their Lordships have further held that in terms of section 68 of the Evidence Act, although it is not necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove due execution of a will but that would not mean that an attested document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be examined at all. Their Lordships have further held that section 68 envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere attestation, as the words "at least" have been used therein. Their Lordships have further held that the will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of section 63 (1) (c) of the Succession Act, 1925. Their Lordships have further held that not only the execution of will be proved, but actual execution must also be attested by at least two witnesses and the attestation of will in question must be in conformity with the provisions of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Their Lordships have further held that 'attestation' and 'execution' connote two different meanings. Their Lordships have held as under: "12. Indisputably a Will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Act). Indisputably, the requirement of Section 63 (1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act is required for to be complied with for proving a writ. Section 68 of the Act mandates proof by attesting witnesses of not merely of execution but also attestation by two witnesses. That is to say, not only the execution of Will must be proved but actually execution must be attested by at least two witnesses. Attestation must of execution of Will be in conformity with the provisions of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. 'Attestation' and 'execution' connote two different meanings. Some documents do not require attestation. Some documents are required by law to be attested. 14. In terms of Section 68 of the Act, although it is not necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove due execution of a Will but that would not mean that an attested document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be examined at all. Section 68 of the Act lays down the mode of proof. Section 68 of the Act lays down the mode of proof. It envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere attestation as the words 'at least' have been used therein. When genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing if any. Thus, in addition to proving the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon. 15. The Court, while granting probate of the will, must take into consideration all relevant factors. It must be found that the will was product of a free will. The testator must have full knowledge and understanding as regards the contents thereof. For the said purpose, the background facts may also be taken note of. Where, however, a plea of undue influence was taken, the onus where for would be on the objector and not on the offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [JT (2007) 12 SC 248]" 23. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Sup reme Court in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365 have held that section 63 (c) of Succession Act, 1925 provides that attestation of will by two or more witness is mandatory. Their Lordships have further held that the will has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. Their Lordships have held as under: "11. The law in regard to proof of a valid Will is now well settled. It has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act reads as under: "Section 63.--Execution of unprivileged Wills -- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules :- (a) and (b) ... Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act reads as under: "Section 63.--Execution of unprivileged Wills -- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules :- (a) and (b) ... (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 acknowledgement 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." 12. Indisputably, the said provision is mandatory in nature. A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. What is meant by the word ‘attestation' is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under : Section 3.--Interpretation-clause--In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,- XXX XXX XXX "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 20. Whether a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not is essentially a question of fact. 20. Whether a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not is essentially a question of fact. We have noticed hereinbefore that there was a large number of suspicious circumstances in the instant case. We have also pointed out that suspicious circumstances appear on the face of the Will. Inferences of suspicious circumstances must be drawn having regard to the evidence of Ranjit Singh. Even the statutory requirements for proof of the Will have not been complied with. It is a trite law that execution of a Will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also." 24. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others, (2009) 1 SCC 354 have reiterated that onus to prove the will lies on the propounder. Their Lordships have further held that even where plea of suspicious circumstances is not raised but circumstances give rise to doubt, the propounder must satisfy the conscience of the court by removing such doubt. Their Lordships have held as under: "18. It is only as against the judgment and findings that the items of property covered by Ext. B2 and B3 are available for division that the second appeal was preferred by the fifth defendant in the High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the properties covered by Ext. B1 and B4 namely items 1 to 3, 13 and 14 are no longer in dispute and the conclusions arrived at by the first appellate court that the said items are not available for division are final and binding on the parties. 19. What is in dispute and is open to further litigation are only the properties covered by Ext. B2 and B3 which were held by both the appellate courts to be available for division. Since we are concerned with the legality of execution of Deed of Will and Deed of Gift, Section 68 of the Act would have some relevance, which reads as follows:- "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. B2 and B3 which were held by both the appellate courts to be available for division. Since we are concerned with the legality of execution of Deed of Will and Deed of Gift, Section 68 of the Act would have some relevance, which reads as follows:- "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. Provided 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." Strong reliance was placed on this provision also by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision will make it crystal clear that so far as a Deed of Will is concerned, the position in law is no longer in doubt for the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. The propounder has to prove the legality of the execution and genuineness of the said Will by proving absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will and also by proving the testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator. Once the same is proved, it could be said that the propounder has discharged the onus. 19. When there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court and only when such responsibility is discharged, the Court would accept the Will as genuine. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Suspicious circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. 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. The aforesaid view is taken by us in consonance with the decision of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee ( AIR 1964 SC 529 ) and Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba ( (1973) 3 SCC 291 ). 20. So far as Section 68 of the Act is concerned, it categorically provides that a Will is required to be attested and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one of the attesting witnesses is called for the purpose of proving its execution provided such attesting witness is alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence." 25. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and others v. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 have held that when natural heirs disinherited and propounder taking interest in the will even though the will was registered one, the propounder must prove due execution of will. Their Lordships have further held that the fact that the propounder took interest in execution of the will is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration for determination of due execution of the will. Their Lordships have further held that the fact that the propounder took interest in execution of the will is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration for determination of due execution of the will. Their Lordships have further held that the propounder of will must prove: (i) that the will was signed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind duly understanding the nature and effect of disposition and he put his signature on the document of his own free will, and (ii) when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder. 26. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Youkumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780 while interpreting section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 have held that as under: "11. As per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of a Will (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the Will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses, and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will and each of them should sign the Will in presence of the testator. 12. The attestation of the Will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of such a document. 13. Since a Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of such a document. 13. Therefore, having regards to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator." 27. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Srinivasa and others v. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 have held that where relying on will, beneficiary thereof sought to deny right of deceased's heirs to inherit under section 15 (2) (a), onus to prove execution and genuineness of the will lay on him. Their Lordships have held as under: "36. As noticed earlier by virtue of Section 15 (2) (a) of the Act, the appellants would inherit the property in dispute. This right is sought to be defeated by defendant No.1 on the basis of the Will dated 18.6.1974, allegedly executed by Puttathayamma. Defendant No.1 being the sole beneficiary under the Will claims that the plaintiffs can not claim to ‘inherit' the property on the basis of intestate succession. Undoubtedly, therefore, it was for defendant No.1 to prove that the Will was duly executed, and proved to be genuine." 28. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has strenuously argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not within limitation. The mutation of land measuring 10-16 bighas situate in village Khillian was attested in favour of defendant No. 1 on 02.02.1971 on the basis of the Will and the presence of Madan Lal, Nauria Ram, Tilak Ram plaintiffs has been shown. The mutation No. 419 of the land measuring 39-11 bighas was sanctioned in favour of Mal Ram, Daulat, Nauria, Tilak Ram and Ram Kishan on 02.02.1971 in the presence of Madan Lal, Nauria Ram and Tilak Ram. In these circumstances, Mr. The mutation No. 419 of the land measuring 39-11 bighas was sanctioned in favour of Mal Ram, Daulat, Nauria, Tilak Ram and Ram Kishan on 02.02.1971 in the presence of Madan Lal, Nauria Ram and Tilak Ram. In these circumstances, Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the cause of action has arisen in favour of the plaintiff on 02.02.1971 and the present suit was barred by limitation. Mutation No. 108 of village Gulab Pura in respect of 32-4 bighas of land owned by Shri Roda Ram was attested in favour of Smt. Krishna wife of defendant No. 2 to the extent of 400/654 shares and in favour of defendant No. 1 to the extent of 252/654 shares. The mutation No. 186 was attested and sanctioned in favour of Tilak Ram and Ram Kishan in respect of 10-03 bighas of land. Plaintiffs were not present at the time when these mutations were attested. There is no material on record to establish that any notice was issued to the plaintiffs at the time of attestation of mutations. 29. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of Ex. DW-8/A, has vehemently argued that an application was also preferred by the plaintiffs before AC-Ist Grade on 19.05.1970 raising objection that the will in question was forged by defendants No. 1 and 2. However, fact of the matter is that the defendants had not produced the will before the AC-Ist Grade. In case they were in possession of the validly executed will, they ought to have placed the same before the AC-Ist Grade. In these circumstances, the presence of the plaintiffs at the time of attestation of mutation Nos. 417 and 419 also becomes doubtful. It is settled law that the mutation is only a fiscal entry and does not create any title. The defendants have threatened to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land in the year 1993 at the time of filing of partition proceedings by plaintiff No. 1. The present suit was filed in the year, 1993 and both the Courts below have come to the right conclusion that the same was within limitation. 30. No other point was urged. 31. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.