JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. - This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi (camp at Karsog) on 9.5.2011 in Civil Appeal No.64 of 2010. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff, Sahbu Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration, injunction and for joint possession against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant" for convenience sake). Shanta wife of Shri Kishori Lal was added as proforma defendant. 3. The case set up in the plaint by plaintiff is that deceased Durga, her father was owner in possession of land comprised in Khata No.2, Khatauni No.2, Khasra Nos.79, 1815/80, 357, 362, 405, 409, 491, 509, 514, 530, 537, 544, 562, 570, 574, 576, 581, 584, 589, 594, 633, 635, 639, 668, 669, 708, 722, 730, 734, 779, 788, 790, 814, 819, 824, 834, 846, 850, 859, 860, 883, 891, 896, 901, 905, 906, 908, 917, 918, 928 Kita-51 measuring 39-2-9 bighas situated in muhal Kandi-III/339. Total land of 108 bighas including this land devolved upon Durga after the death of his father in Vikarami Sambat 1944-45. Durga was left with the aforementioned land as per the copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 as he has disposed of rest of the land. She claims herself along with proforma defendant and Durga to be constituting joint Hindu family and both of them being daughters of Durga were co-parceners and, as such, were having interest in the property mentioned herein above by birth, it being joint Hindu family property. Durga died on 20.5.2007 and thereafter it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that Durga had allegedly executed sale deed No.204 dated 29.3.2007 of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.405, 409, 509, 814, 537, 589, 669, 594, 633, 635, 668, 708, 734, 779, 788, 790, 859, 860, 891 Kita-19 measuring 15-14-9 bighas situate in Muhal Kandi-III/342 in favour of the defendant for a consideration of rupees 17.5 lakh. According to the plaintiff, this sale was a result of fraud and no money was paid to Shri Durga. Durga died 50 days after the execution of the sale deed. According to the plaintiff, this sale was a result of fraud and no money was paid to Shri Durga. Durga died 50 days after the execution of the sale deed. Defendant has produced the Will dated 10.4.2007, Ex.DW-1/A purported to have been executed by Shri Durga in his favour in respect of afore-stated land excluding the land subject matter of the sale deed, i.e. comprised in Khata No.2, Khatauni No.2, Khasra Nos.79, 1815/80, 357, 362, 491, 514, 530, 544, 562, 570, 574, 576, 581, 584, 639, 722, 730, 819, 824, 834, 846, 850, 883, 896, 901, 905, 906, 908, 917, 918 and 928 situate in Muhal Khandi-III/339 (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land" for convenience sake) and other movable and immovable properties of deceased, Durga. According to the plaintiff, this Will is obtained by deceitful means. There was no reason for deceased Durga to disinherit his daughter and proforma defendant from his estate. According to the plaintiff, Will dated 10.4.2007 is null and void. It is in these circumstances, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No.1. According to him, the suit property was self acquired property of deceased Durga, who was earlier tenant under the ruler of Suket in respect of the suit land. Thereafter proprietary rights were conferred upon him. Neither the plaintiff nor proforma defendant has ever resided with Durga and they used to live with their mother. Durga had sold his land for legal necessity and better management of his property as he had taken loan from the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank, Shimla and he was in need of money to discharge that legal obligation. He claims himself to be the adopted son of deceased. He claims that Will Ex.DW-1/A has been executed by deceased Durga in his favour out of love and affection. He had been looking after Durga till his death. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed by the defendant. Issues were framed by the trial Court on 20.12.2008. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of plaintiff on 3.5.2010. Will No.81, dated 10.4.2007 was declared null and void and the plaintiff was found entitled to possession along with proforma defendant of the land mentioned in operative portion of the judgment. Issues were framed by the trial Court on 20.12.2008. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of plaintiff on 3.5.2010. Will No.81, dated 10.4.2007 was declared null and void and the plaintiff was found entitled to possession along with proforma defendant of the land mentioned in operative portion of the judgment. The defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi against the judgment and decree dated 3.5.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh He dismissed the same on 9.5.2011. Hence, this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi (camp at Karsog), dated 9.5.2011. 6. Notices were issued in the regular second appeal to the respondents/plaintiffs on 10.8.2011. 7. Mr. Inder Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant, on the basis of substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that both the Courts below have misinterpreted and misconstrued the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. According to him, Will dated 10.4.2007 was executed in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 10. Plaintiff has placed on record the copy of jamabandi for Vikrami Samvat 1991-92. According to this document, Khasra No.347, Khatauni No.554 was owned and possessed by Durga upon whom proprietary rights were conferred. Original owner of the property was Darwar Riyasat. Plaintiff has also brought on record the copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 in respect of Khata No.450, Khasra No.782 showing that Durga was owner in possession of the land mentioned in the document. In jamabandi for the year 2001-02, ownership of Shri Durga on the suit property has been shown. 11. The Will dated 10.4.2007, alleged to have been executed in favour of defendant, is Ex.DW-1/A. 12. According to DW-1, Bharat Bhushan, Registration Clerk, Ex.DW-1/A is correct as per the original record. 13. DW-2, Smt. Kamini Gupta has scribed the Will Ex.DW-1/A. She deposed that Durga has got this Will scribed in sound disposing state of mind from her and signed the same in presence of witnesses after understanding and admitting its contents to be correct. According to DW-1, Bharat Bhushan, Registration Clerk, Ex.DW-1/A is correct as per the original record. 13. DW-2, Smt. Kamini Gupta has scribed the Will Ex.DW-1/A. She deposed that Durga has got this Will scribed in sound disposing state of mind from her and signed the same in presence of witnesses after understanding and admitting its contents to be correct. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the Will was dictated to her by DW-5, Dina Nath. She has also admitted that Shri Durga was not personally known to her. 14. DW-4, Kundan Lal being an attesting witness of Ex. DW-1/A, has identified his signatures on the Will. He further deposed that the Will in question was scribed by Smt. Kamini Gupta, as per the instructions of testator. He signed the same as a witness. Durga, according to her, had signed in their presence after admitting the contents of the Will to be correct. Thereafter the Will was presented before the Tahsildar for registration, where Durga again admitted the genuineness of the contents thereof. He has denied the suggestion that the Will in question was prepared by him, Dina Nath, Scribe in connivance with Guna Nand and same was got registered without producing Durga. 15. Defendant has appeared as DW-3. He testified that he was treated as adopted son by Durga. He further deposed that DW-2, Smt. Kamini Gupta has scribed the Will and read over the contents of the same to them. Durga and witnesses signed the document after admitting the same to be correct. According to him, land was sold by Durga for rupees 17.5 lakh since he had to discharge certain debts. He has brought on record the bank receipts Ex.DW-3/A-1 to Ex.DW-3/A-12. According to him, the distance between Kaiso and Kathi, where Durga used to reside is 3-4 Kms. He also admitted that Kundan Lal, DW-4 was a witness to the sale deed executed by Durga in his favour. He also admitted categorically that when Durga died, he was not having any money. 16. DW-5 is Dina Nath. According to him, Durga signed the Will in question after understanding the contents of the same. The contents of the same were read over to the witnesses and they also signed the same. According to him, Durga used to come to him for getting certain applications written. 16. DW-5 is Dina Nath. According to him, Durga signed the Will in question after understanding the contents of the same. The contents of the same were read over to the witnesses and they also signed the same. According to him, Durga used to come to him for getting certain applications written. He denied that at the time of scribing the Will, witnesses were not present. He also admitted that the Will was got written from Smt. Kamini Gupta since he was not having license of document writer in the year 2007. 17. PW-1, Prem Lal Kapoor has proved on record the copy of jamabandi for Vikrami Samvat 1991-92, Ex.PW-1/A. He has also proved the copy of mutation Ex.PW-1/D. PW-2, Mool Chand has proved the copy of Pariwar Register Ex.PW- 2/A. 18. Plaintiff, Sahbu Devi has appeared as PW-3. She has led her evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW-3/A. She has also proved on record the copy of jamabandi for the year 1962-63 Ex.PW-3/B, copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 Ex.PW-3/C, statement Ex.PW-3/D, Will Ex.PW- 3/E, copy of Misal Hakiat Ex.PW-3/G and copy of death certificate Ex.PW-3/H. She has denied that defendant was adopted by Durga. She has denied that defendant was looking after Durga. She has also denied that defendant had been living with Durga for the last 30-31 years. She denied that Durga had raised loan from Co-Operative Bank. She has denied that defendants brother had gone to Haridwar. She testified that she had gone to Haridwar. She has denied that Durga was in sound disposing state of mind. She has also denied that Durga was in need of money. 19. PW-4 is Amaru. He has adduced his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-4/A. He did not know if Guna Nand was adopted son of Durga. He testified that Durga was being looked after by defendant, but later on volunteered, Durga was taking care of himself. 20. In the examination-in-chief, DW-2, Kamini Gupta has stated that the Will in question was got scribed by Durga, but in her cross-examination, she has admitted that the Will was dictated by Dina Nath, DW-5. She did not know Durga personally. DW-2 has not testified that the witnesses had also signed the Will in presence of the testator. Similarly, DW-4, Kundan Lal has not testified that the witnesses had seen Durga putting his signatures on Ex.DW-1/A. 21. She did not know Durga personally. DW-2 has not testified that the witnesses had also signed the Will in presence of the testator. Similarly, DW-4, Kundan Lal has not testified that the witnesses had seen Durga putting his signatures on Ex.DW-1/A. 21. It is sine-qua-non that the Will should be signed or marked in the presence of witnesses or the signature or mark should be acknowledged by the testator and thereafter the attesting witness should put his signatures in presence of the testator as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Thus, the Will has not been proved as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 22. In the Will no reasons have been assigned why the daughters have been disinherited by Durga. No document has been placed on record by the defendant about his adoption. The defendant has played active role at the time of execution of Will. The witnesses have gone in the vehicle of Bhupender. The distance between the village of Durga and defendant is more than 3-4 Kms. According to defendant, he has purchased the land from Durga for a consideration of rupees 17.5 lakh prior to the execution of the Will in question. However, when Durga has died after two months of sale deed, he had no money with him. This fact has been admitted by the defendant while appearing as DW-3. In case the defendant was adopted son of Shri Durga, there was no necessity for him to purchase the land from said Durga. The Will has been executed on 10.4.2007 and the sale deed has been executed on 29.3.2007. In case Durga had love and affection for the defendant, there was no need for him to sell the land to defendant. The names of plaintiff and proforma defendant are mentioned in Ex.PW- 2/A. The defendant has not placed any tangible evidence on record to show that his name was included in the family of Durga. Receipts Ex.DW-3/A-1 to Ex.DW-3/A-12 pertain to the years 1993-94. 23. In the instant case, both the Courts have omitted to discuss the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has to discuss the entire oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 24. Receipts Ex.DW-3/A-1 to Ex.DW-3/A-12 pertain to the years 1993-94. 23. In the instant case, both the Courts have omitted to discuss the oral evidence led by the plaintiff. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has to discuss the entire oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 24. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnm Joykumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780 have held that valid "will" 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 testators 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. Their Lordships have held 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. 25. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made herein above, the defendant has failed to prove the proper and valid execution of Will Ex. DW-1/A dated 10.4.2007. The defendant has also failed to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will dated 10.4.2007. The findings recorded by both the Courts below that the defendant has failed to prove the Will in accordance with law, warrant no interference from this Court. Consequently, there is no substantial question of law involved in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.