JUDGEMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No.21-S/13 of 2006, dated 19.7.2008. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent/Principal Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant” for convenience sake). According to the plaint, plaintiff’s husband separated from rest of the family. He had been possessing the property separately. Shri Karam Singh had a son and three daughters. All the three daughters are married. At the time of partition between Shri Karam Singh and his brothers in Bikrami Sambat, 2024, the landed property known as Tandi in revenue Chak Chhupari was given exclusively to late Shri Karam Singh by all the brothers for maintenance of their mother, who was living with Karam Singh. The plaintiff and her husband developed the Tandi land and raised apple orchard from their own labour and money. According to the plaint 1/2 landed property was given to defendant for cultivation and remaining 1/2 landed property was retained by Shri Karam Singh with him. Karam Singh died in the year 1993. The mutation of inheritance was attested on 25.8.1993. Defendant started interfering with the suit property in possession of the plaintiff by visiting the orchard. She dissuaded the defendant from doing so. She approached the respectable persons of village Chhupari for help and in that process Shri Salig Ram and Shri Chet Ram told her that late Shri Karam Singh during his life time has executed a ‘will’ in the year 1993 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know about the existence of ‘will’ for the first time from these persons during the first week of November, 1993. Thereafter she found the ‘will’ in a box in her house. According to the plaintiff this ‘will’ is the last will of deceased Karam Singh and is genuine. According to the plaintiff, in settlement operation, Tandi orchard has been allotted Khasra Nos. 875, 876, 879, 880 and 897, total 5 kitas, measuring 1-06-23 hectares comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.62 min/131. 3.The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, there was no severance with his father. He had been living jointly with his parents. According to the plaintiff, in settlement operation, Tandi orchard has been allotted Khasra Nos. 875, 876, 879, 880 and 897, total 5 kitas, measuring 1-06-23 hectares comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.62 min/131. 3.The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, there was no severance with his father. He had been living jointly with his parents. He has made improvements in the suit property by spending huge amount. He has every right, title and interest to deal in any manner he likes with the suit property. The suit property was ancestral. He has inherited the share in the suit property by birth. The estate has been inherited by legal heirs of Karam Singh in equal 1/5 share. The two daughters of the plaintiff, i.e. sisters of the defendant have relinquished their share in favour of the defendant vide mutation No. 155. The defendant has 3/5 share over the suit land. He has denied that half of the landed property was given to him for cultivation and half share was kept by Karam Singh with him. He has denied that he has visited the orchard for the first time suddenly on 25.11.2003. He has moved petition No.7/2003 under section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for partition of whole property before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohru. The deceased Karam Singh has never disclosed about the ‘will’ during his life time. According to him, no ‘will’ was executed by Sh. Karam Singh. 4.Replication was filed by the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.1, Rohru framed the issues on 17.4.2004. He decreed the suit on 6.5.2005. The contesting defendant filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. He allowed the appeal on 19.7.2008. Hence, this regular second appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. 5.This regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law, on 6.8.2008:- 1. Whether the Will Ext.PW-3/A is surrounded by a suspicious circumstances specially when on the opening para of the document, i.e. Will, dated 28.3.1993 has been mentioned, whereas the said Will was written by scribe on 15.3.1993 and also signed by scribe on 15.3.1993 itself, whereas attested by the attesting witness PW-5 Bhagat Chand on 28.3.1993 ? 2. Whether the Will Ext.PW-3/A is surrounded by a suspicious circumstances specially when on the opening para of the document, i.e. Will, dated 28.3.1993 has been mentioned, whereas the said Will was written by scribe on 15.3.1993 and also signed by scribe on 15.3.1993 itself, whereas attested by the attesting witness PW-5 Bhagat Chand on 28.3.1993 ? 2. Whether the mentioning of wrong date on opening para of the document i.e. Will Ext.PW-3/A inadvertently without any intention and interest would make the said Will surrounded by suspicious circumstance or not? 6.Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned counsel for the plaintiff has strenuously argued that the ‘will’ Ex.PW-3/A has been validly executed and the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court that the ‘will’ is not genuine is contrary to the oral as well as documentary evidence.He then argued that the learned first appellate Court has misconstrued and misread the entire evidence. Mr. V.D. Khidta has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 7.Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court. 8.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 9.Since both the substantial questions of law are interlinked and interconnected, they are taken up together for determination to avoid repetition of discussion of evidence. 10. The ‘will’ in question is Ex.PW-3/A. 11. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. She has testified that defendant Basu Dev had been residing separately for the last more than 16 years. According to her, he was given 1/2 share of landed property by Shri Karam Singh for cultivation. She has further deposed that the orchard over the land Tandi was kept by Karam Singh with him and defendant Basu Dev was given orchard over other landed property. The possession of the orchard in Tandi was with her and she was maintaining the same. She also deposed that her husband died in 1993. The defendant started cutting the branches of the apple trees. She objected to the same. She approached the villagers for help. She was told by them that late Shri Karam Singh during his life time has executed a ‘will’ in her favour. She also deposed that her husband died in 1993. The defendant started cutting the branches of the apple trees. She objected to the same. She approached the villagers for help. She was told by them that late Shri Karam Singh during his life time has executed a ‘will’ in her favour. She has also tendered in evidence the copies of jamabandis Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B and copies of mutation Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D. In cross-examination, she stated that she did not know the Khasra numbers of the suit land, but the areas are two bighas, 21/2 bighas and 4 biswas. She has admitted that defendant Basu Dev has filed a petition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohru for partition of the land. She also testified that her husband had apprised her that he had executed a ‘will’ in her favour, but she did not remember the same. 12. PW-2, Shishi Ram has testified that late Shri Karam Singh and his brothers had taken family partition with respect to joint estate. He has further deposed that the landed property known as Tandi was given to late Shri Karam Singh by all the brothers for maintenance of their mother. Fard is Ex.PW-2/A which bears his signatures. 13. The ‘will’ was scribed by PW-3, Shri Chet Ram, which is Ex.PW-3/A. He has put his signatures on the same. According to him, none of the witnesses were present at the time when the ‘will’ was scribed. He has admitted in cross-examination that Karam Singh has not put his signatures in his presence. He has also admitted that the other witnesses had not put their signatures on the ‘will’ in his presence. Keshav Ram (PW-4) has deposed that the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff. 14. PW-5, Bhagat Chand has testified that Karam Singh executed ‘will’ Ex.PW-3/A in favour of plaintiff. He has read over the contents of the same to Karam Singh and thereafter he put his signatures on the same. He and Bangi Ram had put their signatures on the ‘will’ in his presence. He did not remember that in the ‘will’ date was written as 15.3.1993. 15. Basu Dev, defendant has appeared as DW-1. He has testified that the plaintiff had filed a suit regarding Khasra Nos. 875, 876, 879, 880 and 897 which is situate at Chak Chhupari. He and Bangi Ram had put their signatures on the ‘will’ in his presence. He did not remember that in the ‘will’ date was written as 15.3.1993. 15. Basu Dev, defendant has appeared as DW-1. He has testified that the plaintiff had filed a suit regarding Khasra Nos. 875, 876, 879, 880 and 897 which is situate at Chak Chhupari. He testified that Khasra Nos.875, 876, 879 and 880 are known as Garu and Khasra No.897 is known as Tandi. According to him, an apple orchard exists in Khasra No.897. His father has died and sisters are married. Two sisters have given their shares to him and prepared the relinquishment deed. He has further deposed that he was looking after the whole land. His mother has executed a gift deed in favour of Rajani. According to him, the land shown in Ex.PW-3/A is ancestral property. His father has never told him regarding the execution of any ‘will’. According to him, in fact, his father has not executed any ‘will’ in favour of his mother. He has denied the suggestion that he is residing separately from his parents since 1988. He has admitted that there was partition between his father and the brothers. He has admitted that the name of his grand-mother was Ujli Devi. He has admitted that the property known as Tandi was given to his father by all the brothers for maintenance of their mother. He has denied the suggestion that 1/2 of landed property was given to him by his father. He has admitted that his father has died in the year 1993. He has denied the suggestion that the suit land was in possession of the plaintiff. 16. DW-2 Gopal Krishan has proved the gift deed Ex.DW­2/A. DW-3, Shri Jia Lal has testified that the defendant lived with his parents. He has seen the suit land. The same is one compact area. According to him, the defendant was looking after the whole land. DW-4, Smt. Uma has testified that she has seen the suit land, which is one compact plot and was being looked after by the defendant. 17. The ‘will’ was executed in the year 1993. The case of the plaintiff as per averments contained in the plaint is that she was told by Shri Salig Ram and Shri Chet Ram that a ‘will’ has been executed in her favour by Shri Karam Singh. 17. The ‘will’ was executed in the year 1993. The case of the plaintiff as per averments contained in the plaint is that she was told by Shri Salig Ram and Shri Chet Ram that a ‘will’ has been executed in her favour by Shri Karam Singh. The mutation was attested on 25.8.1993. The ‘will’ Ex.PW-3/A was not produced at that time. Plaintiff has deposed that she could not produce the same as she has forgotten about the ‘will’. She has also admitted in cross-examination that her husband had told about the ‘will’. The stand taken by the plaintiff in Court is contrary to the stand taken in the plaint. According to PW-3, Shri Chet Ram, no witness was present at the time when he scribed the ‘will’. PW-5, Bhagat Chand has also testified that the ‘will’ was not scribed in his presence. It was only read over by him to Karam Singh. He has also testified that Karam Singh signed the ‘will’ in his presence. He and Bangi Ram then signed the ‘will’. Thus, according to PW-5 only he and Bangi Ram were present when the ‘will’ was signed by the testator. PW-3, Chet Ram has deposed in examination-in-chief that the ‘will’ was got scribed by the plaintiff and her husband Karam Singh. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he wrote all that which plaintiff, Kedar Mani dictated to him. The ‘will’ has been scribed in the judicial paper of the year 1991. It has neither been explained by the plaintiff nor PW-3, Chet Ram how this 1991 judicial paper was used for scribing the ‘will’ in the year 1993. In the ‘will’ Ex.PW-3/A besides Tandi orchard, the property in Pokhri, Dwari Teer, Banblu, Abadi of Chhupari etc. have also been mentioned though the attesting witness has testified that the ‘will’ was regarding orchard. According to opening portion of ‘will’ Ex.PW-3/A, the date mentioned is 28.3.1993. The date of the execution of the ‘will’ has been given as 15.3.1993. Chet Ram, who has scribed the ‘will’, has given the date as 15.3.1993. PW-5 Bhagat Chand has given the date as 28.3.1993. This casts serious doubt on the execution of the ‘will’. Why there are different dates on the same document, has not been explained satisfactorily by the plaintiff. 18. Chet Ram, who has scribed the ‘will’, has given the date as 15.3.1993. PW-5 Bhagat Chand has given the date as 28.3.1993. This casts serious doubt on the execution of the ‘will’. Why there are different dates on the same document, has not been explained satisfactorily by the plaintiff. 18. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the ‘will’ in question was not executed in accordance with law and the same is shrouded with suspicions. It was the duty cast upon the propounder of the ‘will’ to remove all the suspicious circumstances. 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Singh and others versus 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. 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. 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 wherefor would be on the objector and not on the offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. 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 wherefor would be on the objector and not on the offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [JT (2007) 12 SC 248]}” 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat versus 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) ... (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. 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 XXXXXX “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 acknowledgment 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 act. 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.” 21. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan versus Thekkayil Padmini and others, (2009) 1 SCC 354 have reiterated that onus to prove the will lies on the propounder. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also.” 21. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan versus 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. - 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. 20. 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. 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). 21. 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.” 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and others versus 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 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. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi versus 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. 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.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.” 24. Consequently, in view of the above observations and discussions, it is held that the learned first appellate Court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties. This Court need not interfere with the well reasoned judgment rendered by the learned first appellate court. 25. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.