JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 14-8-2001 passed in Civil Suit No. 46-A/1991 by the trial Court dismissing his suit for declaration and injunction which has been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court by dismissing his appeal No. 34-A/2001 by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10-12-2003. 2. In brief the case of plaintiff is that he is son of one Karuji who was having ancestral property as well as self-acquired property. According to the plaintiff, ancestral property is in village Bamhni and where the self-acquired property is situated in Pandhurna. The property of Pandhurna is in dispute. The description of the disputed property has also been mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiff, Karuji bequeathed the suit property in favour of plaintiff by executing a will on 3-2-1984. Later on he died on 24-11-1985. The defendants are trying to interfere in the possession of the suit property which has been bequeathed by his father in his favour. It has further been pleaded by the plaintiff that defendants by joining their hands against the plaintiff got the suit property mutated in their names and this fact came into his knowledge when the defendants submitted application for partition before the Tahsil Court where on 5-2-1990 the plaintiff objected. Hence the present suit has been filed. 3. Defendant No. 1-Natthu denied the plaint averments by filing separate written statement while defendants 3 and 4 namely Smt. Dhonda Bai and Mst. Chandrakala Bai who are daughters of Karuji filed their separate written statement and denied the plaint averments as well as execution of Will. 4. Learned trial Court framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence of the parties and thereafter found that the plaintiff has failed to remove the suspicion in respect of the execution of the Will. Learned trial Court further came to hold that the suit property is the joint Hindu Family property and was not self-acquired property of Karuji and, therefore, he was not having any right to execute the Will, eventually, dismissed the suit. 5. The first appeal which was filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. In this manner the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. 5. The first appeal which was filed by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree. In this manner the second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. 6. On 18-3-2005 this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law : Whether the impugned judgment can be sustained in view of the finding regarding the execution of the Will by the testator having been surrounded by suspicious circumstances rendered by both the Courts below which has resulted due to misreading of the evidence on the record. Regarding substantial question of law: 7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the main emphasis which has been put forth by learned two Courts below in dismissing the suit is Ex.D/1 which is a photocopy of the affidavit of the attesting witness to the Will Mohan (PW-2) filed in the Revenue Court, Pandhurna wherein he had stated that he did not put his signature on the Will of Karuji and further stating in it that plaintiff called him at his (plaintiffs) house under the pretext that he (Mohan) had to sign on the partition deed. The document was also not read over to him. Learned counsel submits that this document (Ex.D/1) is a photocopy and is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, learned two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in placing reliance on this document and holding the Will to be suspicious. Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel that on account of taking account on the inadmissible evidence, the learned two Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Will is suspicious and, therefore, the said finding is having no sanctity in the eye of law. 8. On the other hand, Shri Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the defendants, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that learned two Courts below have arrived at a finding that the suit property was not the self-acquired property of the testator Karuji and if that would be the position, he was not having any right to bequeath the property of HUF in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel submits that no substantial question of law has been framed by this Court on this point, hence, the said finding became final. Learned counsel submits that no substantial question of law has been framed by this Court on this point, hence, the said finding became final. Learned counsel by inviting my attention to the finding of learned two Courts below has submitted that even if the authenticity of the document Ex.D/1 is sidelined, there is overwhelming evidence in order to show that the Will is suspicious. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kishan Singh Ahluwalia vs. Smt. Sheela Saxena and others, 2001 (2) MPLJ 117 : 2001(2) JLJ 287 and Keshav Prasad and another vs. Smt. Bhuwani Bai and another, 2007 (1) MPLJ 499 : 2006(4) MPHT 338 . 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. I am in full agreement with the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant that the document Ex.D/1 is inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that it is a photocopy. According to me, merely because an exhibit mark put on an inadmissible document would not render it admissible. There is no provision in the Evidence Act to admit a photocopy of some document in evidence as the same is neither primary nor secondary evidence. Hence, I am of the view that learned two Courts below erred in placing reliance on this document. 11. But, merely because I have held that the aforesaid document Ex.D/1 to be inadmissible, would not render the judgment passed by learned two Courts below bad in law because, inter-alia, the other reasons are also assigned by learned two Courts below holding the Will Ex.P/1 to be suspicious. Rightly it has been held by learned first appellate Court affirming the judgment of learned trial Court that Karuji had died on 24-11-1985 but the Will was hidden for a considerable long period of six years and only on 10-4-1991 when the suit was filed, it was disclosed. The natural conduct of a person holding a Will in his favour is that as soon as the testator of the Will dies, he will put the Will in the limelight amongst the family members. Needless to say that the defendants are the family members of the plaintiff because they are his brothers and sisters. The natural conduct of a person holding a Will in his favour is that as soon as the testator of the Will dies, he will put the Will in the limelight amongst the family members. Needless to say that the defendants are the family members of the plaintiff because they are his brothers and sisters. If the appellant was having a Will in his favour and was also in his possession, certainly he would have filed an application in the Revenue Court to get his name mutated on the basis of the Will or would do something to take the benefit of the Will, but he did not do anything and for the first time after six years after the death of Karuji, he brought into the notice of the defendants that a Will has been executed by his father in his favour by filing the instant suit. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B. N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 , in para 20 has categorically held that the propounder of the Will has to prove the will free for all doubts and suspicions. The Supreme Court has further held in this decision that the 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. Although in the same case the Supreme Court also came to hold and held that if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the Will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators, but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the Will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter. 13. 13. In the present case, if there would have been the plea of defendants admitting the execution of Will with a further plea that it was got executed on account of undue influence, fraud or coercion, the burden of proof to prove these pleas would have been on them and in that case the plaintiff was not required to remove the doubts and suspicious circumstances because the defendants are admitting the execution of the Will. But in the instant case the defendants have not admitted the execution of the Will in their pleading or stating in the evidence that the Will was executed by the testator on account of undue influence, coercion or fraud and therefore the plaintiff was bound to remove suspicious circumstances and all the doubts, particularly when in the written statement it has been pleaded that the Will is suspicious. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in another decision Gorantla Thataiah vs. Thotakura Venkata Subbaiah and others, AIR 1968 SC 1332 . The Division Bench of this (Court in the case of Kishan Singh Ahluwalia (supra) has followed the decision of the Supreme Court Gorantla Thataiah (supra). 14. What are the suspicious circumstances, it vary case to case but the principle is the same that the propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicions then only the Court can rely on the Will. 15. The thorn which is pinching my foot and it has also become an eyesore to me are two circumstances. The first one is that the testator Karuji was an illiterate person and was unable to read and write since he put his thumb impression. The alleged Will Ex.P/1 bears his thumb impression and if that would be the position, according to me, unless and until it is proved from the evidence that the Will was read over and explained to him and after hearing the contents of the Will, he agreed to execute it and put his thumb impression, it cannot be said that the Will has been executed according to the wishes and as per the dictation given by the testator. There is no iota of evidence in this regard of any of the witness examined by the plaintiff, therefore, I am of the view that the alleged Will which has been executed by an illiterate person who is unable to read and write, is not proved and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 16. At this juncture learned counsel for appellant submits that testator Karuji was physically unable therefore he put his thumb impression on the Will although he was a literate person. But looking to the evidence of plaintiff Ramrao (PW-1) para 7 this Court finds that Karuji was an illiterate person, hence this contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted and that too at the second appellate stage. 17. At this juncture, I would like to mention here that when the case would rest upon the Will, the duty of the Court is to sit upon the arms chair of the testator to testify the genuineness of the Will and to examine the authenticity of the Will and whether the testator has removed all the suspicious circumstances. On keeping myself on the arms chair of the testator, certainly the person who is an illiterate, cannot read and write, would ask what is written in the document of Will in order to understand and ascertain that the Will has been written according to his own wishes and direction. 18. The second suspicious circumstance is that although the plaintiff was having Will in his possession and the said Will has been executed on 3-2-1984 and testator Karuji died on 24-11-1985, but, the plaintiff was keeping silent and did not act upon on the basis of Will for years together which is against his natural conduct. Certainly a person would act upon the Will after death of the testator particularly it has been executed by his father and would show it to the family members or would disclose the factum of execution of the Will filing some application in the Revenue Court on the basis of the said Will, but, certainly he will not keep silent for years together. The plaintiff has not disclosed the Will for near about 5 years. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the substantial question of law is answered and decided against the appellant by holding that the Will is suspicious and the suspicions are not removed and there is no misreading of evidence. 20. The plaintiff has not disclosed the Will for near about 5 years. 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the substantial question of law is answered and decided against the appellant by holding that the Will is suspicious and the suspicions are not removed and there is no misreading of evidence. 20. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.