JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2009, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 72 of 2006. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for the sake of convenience) have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the defendant for the sake of convenience). According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1, Santosh Kumari Dogra was married to Rajinder Parshad Dogra on 31.10.1977 and from their wedlock, plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were born. It is further averred that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 138, Khatauni No. 191, Khasra No. 1439, measuring an area 1 Kanal 11 Marlas, Khata No. 139, Khatauni No. 192, Khasra No. 1530, measuring an area 25 Kanals 5 Marlas, situated in Tika Sujanpur, Mouza Baleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., as per Ex.-P1, copy of Jamabandi for the year 1992-93. They are Class-1 heirs of Rajinder Parshad Dogra, who was owing and possessing the suit land during his life time. The defendant has forged a will, dated 11.03.1998, Ex. DW-2/A. The suit land is ancestral. It is in these circumstances, the suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and are also entitled to remain owners in possession in future and also that they were not bound by will. A prayer was made for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing interference in the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, she was the legally wedded wife of Rajinder Parshad Dogra and he has executed a will, dated 10.03.1998, in her favour. The deceased was looked after by the defendant. The defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. 4. The plaintiffs filed the replication. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh framed the issues on 20.06.2000. The deceased was looked after by the defendant. The defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. 4. The plaintiffs filed the replication. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh framed the issues on 20.06.2000. The trial Court decreed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners being the legal heirs of Rajinder Parshad Dogra of the suit land as per the details given in the plaint and the will, dated 10.03.1998, registered on 11.03.1998, was not valid will, with consequential relief of possession against the defendant. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 26.05.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, H.P., the defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh He dismissed the same on 02.03.2009. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 6. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 21.07.2010: "Whether the Courts below have committed an error by disbelieving the will, especially when the marginal witnesses are stated to have signed the said will?" 7. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the defendant has proved the execution of will, Ex. DW2/A, dated 10.03.1998. He then contended that the will was duly registered and the marginal witnesses have attested the same. 8. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 9. Plaintiff Santosh Kumari has appeared as PW-1. According to her, she was married to Rajinder Parshad Dogra on 31.10.1977. Her husband died on 25.03.1999 and they have inherited his property being Class-1 legal heirs. She has denied that Rajinder Parshad Dogra married Usha Kumari. She has denied the suggestion that they had agreed to dissolve their marriage. 10. PW-2, Tripta Joshi has deposed that Madhurya Dogra, daughter of Rajinder Dogra was admitted in their School on 23.06.1994. PW-3, Parkash Chand, Senior Assistant has also testified that Gaurav Dogra, plaintiff was admitted in their School on 25.06.1997. 11. PW-4, Saroj Kumari deposed that she knew Rajinder Parshad Dogra. Plaintiff, Santosh Kumari was married to him and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were born out of the wedlock. PW-5 Kamal Kumar has testified that he knew Rajinder Parshad Dogra. He was married to Santosh Kumari, plaintiff. 12. 11. PW-4, Saroj Kumari deposed that she knew Rajinder Parshad Dogra. Plaintiff, Santosh Kumari was married to him and plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 were born out of the wedlock. PW-5 Kamal Kumar has testified that he knew Rajinder Parshad Dogra. He was married to Santosh Kumari, plaintiff. 12. PW-6, Jagdish Parshad has also testified that he was Centre Head Teacher in Education Department and retired from there. He also deposed that Rajinder Parshad Dogra was husband of Santosh Kumari. He did not know if Usha Devi was wife of Rajinder Parshad. 13. PW-7, Vinod Sharma has deposed that the name of Santosh Kumari is entered as wife of Rajinder Parshad Dogra. Gaurav is their son and Madhuraya Kumari is their daughter. 14. Kashmir Singh has appeared as PW-1 in rebuttal. He deposed that he knew Rajinder Parshad Dogra. According to him, the petition writer had come to his house and he told that he had written a will of Rajinder Kumar. He was asked to come to Tehsil Office on the next day. He went there and Tehsildar did not make any inquiry. Rajinder Dogra was ill at that time. Rajinder Parshad Dogra has only married to Santosh Kumari. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he is witness of the will and the same was executed in favour of Usha. 15. Usha Devi has appeared as DW-1. According to her, she was married to Rajinder Parshad Dogra. He was working as Senior Assistant in Police Department. According to her, she is residing with her sister-in-law at Sujanpur. Her husband has executed a Will in her favour. The will was executed on 10.03.1998. 16. DW-2, Kishori Lal has deposed that will, Ex. DW-2/A was entered on 11.03.1998 in their register and it was executed in favour of Usha Devi. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Kashmir Singh has appeared as a witness in a number of cases. 17. DW-3, Kashmir Singh has deposed that will Ex.- DW2/A was executed by Rajinder Parshad in favour of his wife, Usha Devi on 10.03.1998. He has admitted in his cross-examination, that he has not gone to the Sub Registrar Office. DW-4, Daler Singh, has deposed that the will Ex.-DW-2/A bears his signatures. It was executed by Rajinder Parshad in favour of Usha Devi. It was scribed by Kashmir Singh. 18. He has admitted in his cross-examination, that he has not gone to the Sub Registrar Office. DW-4, Daler Singh, has deposed that the will Ex.-DW-2/A bears his signatures. It was executed by Rajinder Parshad in favour of Usha Devi. It was scribed by Kashmir Singh. 18. According to DW-5, Nand Lal, Usha Devi was married on 17th July, 1995 at Sujanpur. According to him, the marriage was entered in the Panchayat records. DW-6, Yugal Kishore, deposed that in the service record of Rajinder Parsad Dogra, the name of his wife is entered as Usha Devi. 19. DW-7, Yog Raj has deposed that he has worked as Pandit in the marriage of Usha Devi. The Barat has come from Sujanpur and the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites and rituals. 20. The defendant has also moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the 1st Appellate Court. The application was decided by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh on 03.11.2007. AW-1, Satish Kumar has proved plaint in case No. 3-S-2 of 2000, titled Usha Kumari v. General Public. Copy of order, dated 06.10.2001, passed by the District Judge, Shimla is Ex.-AW1/B. 21. AW-2, Jatinder Singh has deposed that Civil Suit No. 405-1 of 1999, titled Usha Dogra v. Santosh Kumari was pending before Court No. 4, Shimla. Kashmir Singh, who has appeared as DW-3 and thereafter as PW-1 in rebuttal, has also appeared as AW-3 before the 1st Appellate Court. He has deposed that he has signed Ex. AW1/A. He knew Usha Dogra. He signed the will of Rajinder Dogra as a marginal witness. He has admitted that in main suit, he has appeared as a witness on behalf of Santosh Kumari. 22. A will is required to be attested by at least two witnesses before whom the testator should sign the will and the witnesses should also attest the same in his presence. In the present case, neither DW-3 nor DW-4 have deposed that the testator Rajinder Parshad Dogra has signed the will in their presence or they have signed the will in his presence. In the present case, neither DW-3 nor DW-4 have deposed that the testator Rajinder Parshad Dogra has signed the will in their presence or they have signed the will in his presence. Kashmir Singh has not deposed that the will was scribed at the behest of the testator and it was read over and explained to the testator in the presence of the witnesses and that the testator attested it after admitting it to be correct in the presence of the witnesses and that the witness also attested it in his presence. The statement of Kashmir Singh can also not be relied upon for the simple reason that he has appeared as DW-3 and thereafter as PW-1 in rebuttal and also as AW-3 when the application under Order 41 Rule 27, C.P.C. was allowed by the learned District Judge in the year 2007 and has made contradictory statements. Kashmir Singh has also not deposed that Rajinder Parshad Dogra has signed in his presence before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the will or he has put his signatures in his presence. DW-4, Daler Singh has also not testified that the will was scribed at the behest of the testator Rajinder Dogra. He has also not deposed that the contents of the same were read over and explained to him and he after admitting it to be correct, has signed the same in the presence of the witnesses and the witnesses have also attested the same in his presence. There are no reasons assigned in the will why the plaintiffs being Class-1 legal heirs, have been disinherited from the property. Plaintiff Santosh Kumari was duly married to Shri Rajinder Parshad Dogra. Since the marriage of Santosh Kumari with Rajinder Parshad Dogra was subsisting, Usha Devi, defendant could not contract second marriage in view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 23. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, has put strong reliance on Pentakota Satyanarayana and others v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4362. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, neither the scribe nor the marginal witnesses have seen the testator signing in their presence nor they have signed in his presence. The will in question has not been proved in accordance with law by the defendant. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. In the present case, neither the scribe nor the marginal witnesses have seen the testator signing in their presence nor they have signed in his presence. The will in question has not been proved in accordance with law by the defendant. The bare provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have not been complied with at the time of attestation of the will. 24. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme court in Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharada Raje and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 695, have held that the proving of execution of a will does not only mean proving of the signatures of the executors and the attesting witnesses. It means something more. A will is not an ordinary document. It although requires to be proved like any other document but the statutory conditions imposed by reason of Section 63(c) of the Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act cannot be ignored. Their Lordships have further held that deprivation of a due share to the natural heir by itself may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance but it is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the Courts before granting probate of a will. Their Lordships have further held that animus attestandi is a necessary ingredient for proving the attestation. Their Lordships have held as under: "52. Whereas execution of any other document can be proved by proving the writings of the document or the contents of it as also the execution thereof, in the event there exists suspicious circumstances the party seeking to obtain probate and/ or letters of administration with a copy of the Will annexed must also adduce evidence to the satisfaction of the court before it can be accepted as genuine. 53. As an order granting probate is a judgment in rem, the court must also satisfy its conscience before it passes an order. 54. It may be true that deprivation of a due share by the natural heir by itself may not be held to be a suspicious circumstance but it is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the courts before granting probate of a Will. 55. Unlike other documents, even animus attestandi is a necessary ingredient for proving the attestation. 59. 55. Unlike other documents, even animus attestandi is a necessary ingredient for proving the attestation. 59. The court is, thus, required to adopt a rational approach in a situation of this nature. Once the court is required to satisfy its conscience, existence of suspicious circumstances play a prominent role." 25. In Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal and others (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 266, their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have again reiterated the principles of validity and proof of will as under "15. From a conjoint reading of the two provisions extracted above it is evident that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from the Testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or his signature or the signature of such other person and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the Testator. Section 68 of the Evidence Act is against the use of a Will in evidence unless one attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution. 16. The question, however, is whether the Will propounded by the appellant and purporting to have been attested by two witnesses, namely, Manoj Kumar and Vilas Tikhe has been validly proved. It is not disputed that one of the said witnesses namely, Vilas Tikhe has been summoned and examined as a witness. What is to be seen is whether the examination of the said witness satisfies the requirements of Section 63 of the Evidence Act (supra). 17. A careful analysis of the provisions of Section 63 would show that proof of execution of a Will would require the following aspects to be proved: (1) That the Testator has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or the Will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the Testator. (2) The signature or mark of the Testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (2) The signature or mark of the Testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (3) That the Will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or has been seen by some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from Testator a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person. (4) That each of the witnesses has singed the Will in the presence of the Testator. 18. The decisions of this Court in Bhagwan Kaur W/o Bachan Singh v. Kartar Kaur W/o Bachan Singh & Ors. 1994 (5) SCC 135 , Seth Beni Chand (since dead) now by L.Rs. v. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and Ors. 1976 (4) SCC 554 , Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam 2003 (2) SCC 91 , Gurdev Kaur and Ors. v. Kaki and Ors. 2007 (1) SCC 546 , Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and Ors., 2009 (4) SCC 780 , Rur Singh (dead) Through LRs. and Ors. v. Bachan Kaur, 2009 (11) SCC 1 and Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharada Raje and Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 695 recognise and reiterate the requirements enumerated above to be essential for the proof of execution of an unprivileged Will like the one at hand. It is, therefore, not necessary to burden this judgment by a detailed reference of the facts relevant to each one of these pronouncements and the precise contention that was urged and determined in those cases. All that needs to be examined is whether the requirements stipulated in Section 63 and distinctively enumerated above have been satisfied in the instant case by the appellant propounder of the Will." 26. The propounder has failed to prove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme 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. The propounder has failed to prove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme 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) ... (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 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, 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 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 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 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." 27. Their Lordships of the Honble 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. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also." 27. Their Lordships of the Honble 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. - 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. 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." 28. Their Lordships of the Honble 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 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 testators mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder. 29. Their Lordships of the Honble 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. 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." 30. Mere registration of a will, will not make it valid will in absence of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Indian Succession Act,1985 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Santosh Kumari is legally wedded wife of Shri Rajinder Parashad Dogra and the will Ex. DW-2/A, dated 10.03.1998, is not validly executed. The registration of the will Ex.-DW2/A will not create presumption of its genuineness. It is still required to be proved in accordance with law, but the defendant has failed to prove the same. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 31. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made herein above, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. No costs.