JUDGMENT : Appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 4-5-1991 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Sagar in Civil Suit No. (2-A/78) 41-A/91, whereby suit of plaintiffs has been dismissed. It is undisputed that Gajadhar Prasad Lodhi died on 30-10-1976. It is also undisputed that after the death of Gajadhar Prasad, name of plaintiff No. 4-Parwatibai and Jamunabai was inutated in the Revenue Record as successors of deceased-Gajadhar Prasad. Appellant/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of Tehsildar, which was dismissed on 13-6-78. It is also undisputed that Parwatibai was died during the pendency of the suit and name of appellants Kamlesh and Rajesh s/o Prahlad Singh was substituted as her successors. 3. Suit of the appellants/plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that Gajadhar Prasad was issueless. He executed a Will of movable and immovable property on 20-5-1974 in favour of appellants and Parwatibai (since deceased). It is further pleaded that appellants/plaintiffs are in possession of agriculture land mentioned in plaint in Para 2 and residential house at Beldhana. It is further pleaded that appellants filed a mutation proceeding under Section 110 of the MPLRC, 1959, before the Naib Tehsildar, Deori. Respondent Jamunabai objected aforesaid proceeding and claiming herself as successor of Gajadhar Prasad. As mentioned in the admitted fact, Tehsildar had passed the order dated 31-10-1977 in favour of the plaintiff Parwatibai and respondent-Jamunabai. It is further pleaded that Naib Tehsildar dismissed the claim of appellant/plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 based on Will. They assailed the order in appeal, but the same was also dismissed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rehli on 13-6-1978. Therefore, plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent. 4. Respondent/defendant denied the pleading of appellants and pleaded that being a daughter of Gajadhar, she is the sole successor of him. She further pleaded that at the time of execution of alleged Will on 20-5-1974, Gajadhar Prasad was not physically and mentally sound. She further pleaded that plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property, however, they are trying to forcibly dispossess her. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, she prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned Additional District Judge framed as many as 8 issues and after appraisal of evidence on record, Trial Court dismissed the suit of appellants/plaintiffs. She further pleaded that plaintiffs are not in possession of the disputed property, however, they are trying to forcibly dispossess her. On the basis of aforesaid pleading, she prays for dismissal of the suit. 5. Learned Additional District Judge framed as many as 8 issues and after appraisal of evidence on record, Trial Court dismissed the suit of appellants/plaintiffs. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that respondent-Jamunabai was in the womb of her mother when she came to house of deceased Gajadhar Prasad, therefore, Trial Court committed error in holding that Jamunabai was the daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. He further submitted that Trial Court committed illegality in recording the finding that execution of Will is not proved. He further contended that Will was duly proved, therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported and justified the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. He further submitted that there is no pleading in the plaint that Jamunabai was not the daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. He further submitted that burden of proving the fact that Gajadhar Prasad was physically and mentally sound at the time of execution of the alleged Will, was on appellants and same was not discharged, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other material on record. 9. Parwatibai (P.W. 1) deposed that she lived with Gajadhar Prasad as his wife. Gajadhar kept her according to the custom of kari-dhari. She further deposed that when she came to the house of Gajadhar Prasad, he was issueless, however, Jamunabai was living with him. Gajadhar told her that he brought up and maintained to Jamunabai. 10. Babulal (P.W. 2) deposed that he purchased the land from Gajadhar in the year 1965 and Gajadhar executed the sale-deed (Exh. P-l). He further deposed that at the time of execution of sale-deed, Jamunabai filed an objection before the Tehsildar, but same was dismissed. He admitted in his cross-examination that Gajadhar admitted in his previous statement (Exh. 10. Babulal (P.W. 2) deposed that he purchased the land from Gajadhar in the year 1965 and Gajadhar executed the sale-deed (Exh. P-l). He further deposed that at the time of execution of sale-deed, Jamunabai filed an objection before the Tehsildar, but same was dismissed. He admitted in his cross-examination that Gajadhar admitted in his previous statement (Exh. P-2) that he recorded his name" as father of Jamunabai in the school record. 11. On the contrary, respondent-Jamunabai (D.W. 1) deposed that Gajadhar was her father. Gajadhar admitted her in the school and recorded his name as her father. Her version was supported by Babulal (D.W. 2), Mukundilal (D.W. 3) and Nandu (D.W. 4). All these witnesses are senior citizens and they are aged about 65 to 85 years. They are living in the same village and are neighbours of Gajadhar. All of them deposed that Jamunabai is daughter of Gajadhar. They categorically deposed that Pyaribai, mother of Jamunabai, lived with Gajadhar as his wife. This fact finds further support by the evidence of Tulsabai (D.W. 5), Principal of Girls School, Deori. She deposed that she issued a certificate (Exh. D-3) on the basis of register maintained by the school. She further deposed that Gajadhar Prasad put his signature in the register as father of Jamunabai. She further deposed that she is also resident of Deori, therefore, she was well known to Gajadhar and Jamunabai. Despite extensive cross-examination she remained undeviated, therefore, the Trial Court rightly believed her testimony. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the previous statement of Gajadhar. It is undisputed on record that some land was sold by Gajadhar'to Babulal (P.W. 2), vide Exh. P-1. At the time of execution of sale-deed (Exh. P-l), Jamunabai filed the objection before the Revenue Court. In this contest, aforesaid evidence was recorded. On perusal of the aforesaid previous statement, it appears that Gajadhar Prasad was intended to sale the property and Jamunabai objected the same, therefore, he might be deposed that she is not her daughter. This incident took place in the year 1965, but evidence produced by Jamunabai (D.W. 1) is older than it, like her school certificate, proved by Tulsabai (D.W. 5). This fact finds further support from senior citizens and old persons of the village, therefore, Trial Court rightly discarded the previous statement of Gajadhar (Exh. This incident took place in the year 1965, but evidence produced by Jamunabai (D.W. 1) is older than it, like her school certificate, proved by Tulsabai (D.W. 5). This fact finds further support from senior citizens and old persons of the village, therefore, Trial Court rightly discarded the previous statement of Gajadhar (Exh. P-2) and held that Jamunabai is daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. 13. On appraisal of the aforesaid evidence on record, I am also of the view that it is proved on record that Jamunabai is daughter of Gajadhar Prasad. 14. Now, I consider the question of execution of Will executed by Gajadhar Prasad. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants/plaintiffs by adducing the evidence of plaintiff Purshottam Lal (P.W. 3), Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6) and Mohan Lal (P.W. 6-A) duly proved the execution of Will (Exh. P-3). He placed reliance on Girja Datt Singh Vs. Gangotri Datt Singh, AIR 1955 SC 346 ; Penkota Satyaharyanan and others Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others, AIR 2005 SC 4362 ; H. Venkatachala lyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 and Vijay Kumar Bhagwat Vs. Shri Kant and another, 2001(1) M.P.H.T. 226 . 15. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent contended that appellants/plaintiffs failed to remove all suspicion like the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind at the relevant time. They also failed to prove the due attestation of execution of alleged Will. He placed reliance, on Ramautar Vs. Ram Naresh and others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 21 and Sundariya Bai Choudhary Vs. Union of India and others, 2008(3) M.P.H.T. 315 . 16. On perusal of the aforesaid authorities, cited by respective parties, one thing is crystal clear that it is the duty of propounder to satisfy the Court by adducing evidence that testator was sound and disposing state of mind. He understood the nature and effect of the dispositions at the relevant time and thereafter, he signed the document of his own free Will as well as he is under obligation to prove the execution of Will according to Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Girja Datt Singh (supra) :- "It still remains to consider whether the attestation of the signature of the deceased on the Will (Exh. As observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Girja Datt Singh (supra) :- "It still remains to consider whether the attestation of the signature of the deceased on the Will (Exh. A-36) was in accordance with the requirements of Section 63, Indian Succession Act. Section 63 prescribes that:- '(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix hismark 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 acknowledgment 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.....' In order to prove the due attestation of the Will (Exh. A-36) Gangotri would have to prove that Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh saw the deceased sign the Will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the deceased. The evidence of Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh is not such as to carry conviction in the mind of the Court that they saw the deceased sign thfe Will and each of them appended his signature to the WilTin the presence of the deceased. They-have been demonstrated to be witnesses who had no regard for truth and were ready and willing to oblige Gurcharan Lal in transferring the venue of the execution and attestation of the documents (Exh. A-23 and Exh. A-36) from Gonda to Tarabganj for reasons best known to themselves. If no reliance could, thus, be placed upon their oral testimony, where would be the assurance that they actually saw the deceased execute the Will in their presence and each of them signed the Will in the presence of the deceased. It may as well be that the signature of the deceased on the Will was appended at one time, the deceased being there all alone by himself and the attestations were made by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh at another time without having seen the deceased sigh the Will or when the deceased was not present when they appended their signatures thereto in token of attestation. We have no satisfactory evidence before us to enable us to come to the conclusion that the Will was duly attested by Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh and we are, therefore, unable to hold that the Will (Exh. A-36) is proved to have been duly executed and attested. When this position was realised, the learned Counsel for Gangotri fell back on an alternative argument and it was that the deceased admitted execution and completion of the Will (Exh. A-36) and acknowledged his signature thereto before the Sub-Registrar at Tarabganj and this acknowledgment of his signature was in the presence of the two persons, who identified him before the Sub-Registrar, viz., Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur, who had, in their turn, appended their signatures at the foot of the endorsement by the Sub-Registrar. These signatures, it was contended, were enough to prove the due attestation of the Will (Exh. A-36). This argument would have availed Gangotri, if Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur had appended their signatures at the foot of the endorsement of registration 'animo attestandi'. But, even apart.from this-circumstance, it is significant that neither Mahadeo Pershad nor Nageshur was called as a witness to depose to '*-the fact of such attestation if any. One could not presume from the mere signatures of Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur appearing at the foot of the endorsement of registration that they had appended their* signatures to the document as attesting witnesses or can be construed to have done so in their capacity as attesting witnesses. Section 68, Indian Evidence Act requires an attesting witness to be called as a witness to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will. This provision should have been complied with in order That Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur be treated as attesting witnesses. This line of argument, therefore, cannot help Gattgotri." 17. I shall now examine the evidence adduced by respective parties in the light of aforesaid principle of law. Plaintiff-Purshottam Lal (P.W. 3) claims that he was present at the time of execution of Will. He further deposed that Will was prepared by Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6) and same was read over to Gajadhar Prasad. First of all, Gajadhar Prasad put his signature on the said Will. Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6) deposed that he prepared the Will (Exh. P-3) on 20-5-1974. At the time * when Gajadhar Prasad came over to him, he was physically and mentally sound. First of all, Gajadhar Prasad put his signature on the said Will. Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6) deposed that he prepared the Will (Exh. P-3) on 20-5-1974. At the time * when Gajadhar Prasad came over to him, he was physically and mentally sound. He further admitted that Gajadhar Prasad had not told any Khasra or Rakba number of the agriculture land. He had directly typed the aforesaid document without preparing any draft and remuneration was paid by Chandan. 18. Mohan Lal (P.W. 6-A) attesting witness deposed that he was resident of District Seoni and on the relevant day, he came to Deori for buying the tickets and Chandan called him for witnessing the execution of aforesaid document, therefore, he signed the alleged Will. 19. On the other hand, defendant Jamunabai (D.W. 1) deposed that Gajadhar Prasad was suffering from diabetes and he became blind. He was blind since 8 years before his death. She further deposed that Gajadhar Prasad had not signed the alleged Will (Exh. P-3). 20. Babulal (D.W. 2), Mukundilal (D.W. 3) and Nandu (D.W. 4) supported the version of defendant Jamunabai (D.W. 1). All of them categorically stated that Gajadhar Prasad lost his sight, he was unable to walk as well as he was hard of hearing. All these witnesses.remained undeviated in their cross-examinations in regard to soundness of health of Gajadhar Prasad, therefore, their testimony is more reliable than witnesses of appellants/plaintiffs regarding health of Gajadhar Prasad because attesting witness Mohan Lal (P.W. 6-A) and Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6) are not living in the same village: On careful scanning of their evidence, it reveals that Vinod Shrivastava admitted that he is unable to recollect the fact that eye-sight of Gajadhar Prasad was weak. Mohan Lal (P.W. 6-A) admitted that Gajadhar Prasad was an old man of 70 years. He further admitted that alleged Will was not written before him. This fact further finds support from the admission of plaintiff-Purshottam Lal (P.W. 3) that at the time of death of Gajadhar Prasad, he was 70 to 72 years and he died after two years "of execution of the alleged Will. He further admitted that alleged Will was not written before him. This fact further finds support from the admission of plaintiff-Purshottam Lal (P.W. 3) that at the time of death of Gajadhar Prasad, he was 70 to 72 years and he died after two years "of execution of the alleged Will. In these circumstances, where the neighbour witnesses like Babulal (D.W. 2), Mukundi Lal (D.W. 3) and N[andu (D.W. 4) are of old aged deposed that Gajadhar Prasad was not in a fit 'condition to walk as well as eye-sight was weak, their testimony appears to be more reliable on the point of unsound health of Gajadhar Prasad. In this way, propounder has failed to clear the suspicion in regard to soundness of health of Gajadhar Prasad. 21. When, I considered the evidence of Vinod Shrivastava (P.W. 6), who had not deposed regarding the fact that he read over the document to Gajadhar Prasad, it reveals from his evidence that he prepared the document without preparing any draft and without disclosed by him on typing any Khasra number of the land. Document was typed on the direction of Gajadhar Prasad. This very fact is disclosed by him in the last line of his deposition of examination-in-chief, which shows that this fact was putting the question by learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. 22. Mohan at (P.W. 6-A) is the outsider. He was called by propounder Chandan. It appears and believable that he came to purchase the tickets from District Seoni, but it also reveals from his evidence that he is unable to say that alleged Will was executed by Gajadhar Prasad of his own free Will. He also admitted difference of two signatures on Exh. P-3. Trial Court itself compared the signature of Gajadhar Prasad with admitted documents on record like Lxh. P-15 filed by appellants/plaintiffs and Exh. D-6 filed by defendant and reached to the conclusion that signature of Gajadhar Prasad on Exh. P-3 appears to be doubtful. 23. Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court has power to compare the signature and writing of the concerned persons with other admitted or proved document. I also perused the Exh. P-3, the alleged Will (Exh. P-15 and Exh. P-16) and found the difference in the signatures of Gajadhar Prasad. 24. P-3 appears to be doubtful. 23. Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court has power to compare the signature and writing of the concerned persons with other admitted or proved document. I also perused the Exh. P-3, the alleged Will (Exh. P-15 and Exh. P-16) and found the difference in the signatures of Gajadhar Prasad. 24. Considering the aforesaid evidence on record, I am of the view that Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove the execution of Will beyond suspicion. 25. It is proved on record that Parwatibai has executed the Will in favour of appellants/plaintiffs Kamlesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar s/o Prahlad Singh and Parwatibai was already recorded Bhuraiswami 50% share of the disputed property. In these circumstances, question of possession is no.t required further discussion. I am of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the suit of appellants/plaintiffs. 26. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs fails and is dismissed. 27. The appellants/plaintiffs shall bear their own cost and cost of the respondent. 28. Counsel fees as per schedule or as per certificate (whichever is less). 29. Decree be drawn accordingly.