JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.3.20 13 rendered by the learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No.6 of 2012. 2.“Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake) on the ground that the revenue entries regarding the land fully detailed in para No.1 of the plaint are wrong and null and void. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was previously owned by Smt. Phulla Devi and Smt. Kali Devi. Smt. Kali Devi died on 27.3.1993 and Smt. Phulla Devi died in the month of June, 1994. Kali Devi was unmarried. Phulla Devi, being her sister, was entitled to succeed her estate. Kali Devi and Phulla Devi were illiterate and simpleton ladies. Smt. Kali Devi expired on 27.3.1993. Thereafter, Smt. Phulla Devi succeeded her and after the death of Smt. Phulla Devi, the entire land came into the possession of the plaintiff, being her only daughter. However, on 23.1.2004, defendant proclaimed that he is the joint owner in the suit land on the basis of “will” Ex.DW-3/A dated 16.3.1993. The said “will” is stated to be forged document. She has challenged the “will” on various grounds. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, the testatrix has executed the “will” in her sound and disposing state of mind. She was looked after by the father of the defendant. Kali Devi and Phulla Devi were literate. According to him, the mutation was attested on 25.4.1995. 4.The replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 18.8.2004. He dismissed the suit on 29.11.2011. The defendant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. He dismissed the same on 30.3.2013. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5.Mr. G.R. Palsara has vehemently argued that both the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. According to him, the “will”, i.e. Ex.DW-3/A dated 16.3.1993 has been duly proved by the defendant. 6.I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsara and have gone through the judgments carefully. 7.Plaintiff Raj Kumari has appeared as PW- 1. According to him, the “will”, i.e. Ex.DW-3/A dated 16.3.1993 has been duly proved by the defendant. 6.I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsara and have gone through the judgments carefully. 7.Plaintiff Raj Kumari has appeared as PW- 1. According to her, “will” was not executed by Smt. Kali Devi and it is the outcome of fraud and undue influence. She tendered in evidence Ex. PA copy of jamabandi for the year 1997-98, Ex. PB copy of jamabandi for the year 1992-93 and copy of “will” mark ‘X’. 8.Plaintiff has also examined RPW- 1 Beli Ram. According to him, Kali Devi expired in the year 1993. She was suffering from throat cancer. She was not in a perfect state of mind and was seriously ill. She was looked after by the plaintiff. According to him, defendant’s father Sohan Lal has never looked after Kali Devi nor was she related to the defendant and his father. 9. RPW-2 Moti Ram was one of the attesting witnesses of the “will”. According to him, Kali Devi died due to throat cancer. She was bed ridden and was looked after by the plaintiff and her mother Phulla Devi. According to him, in the year 1993, when he was sitting on the road at place Nagwain, 2-3 persons came alongwith Tehsildar and his Munshi. Sohan Lal, father of the defendant, asked him to be witness. He visited the house of Kali Devi. She was bed ridden. Her signatures were obtained by the Munshi of the Tehsildar. No question was put to Kali Devi. Kali Devi had not given any statement. She was not conscious. 10. RPW-3 Parma Nand has deposed that Kali Devi died of cancer. She was not physically and mentally alert. The last rites of Kali Devi were performed by the plaintiff and Phulla Devi. He has not seen the defendant looking after the deceased. 11. DW- 1 Chet Ram, Naib Tehsildar has deposed that he after satisfying himself made endorsement Ex.DW­1/A. 12. Defendant has appeared as DW-2. According to him, the “will” was executed in his favour as his father used to look after Kali Devi. The “will” was executed on 16.3.1993. It was scribed by Advocate Trilok Thakur in the presence of witnesses Uttam Chand, Mahinder Pal, Moti Ram and identifier Krishan Pal. Kali Devi died on 27.3.1993. He has tendered the “will” mark ‘A’. 13. According to him, the “will” was executed in his favour as his father used to look after Kali Devi. The “will” was executed on 16.3.1993. It was scribed by Advocate Trilok Thakur in the presence of witnesses Uttam Chand, Mahinder Pal, Moti Ram and identifier Krishan Pal. Kali Devi died on 27.3.1993. He has tendered the “will” mark ‘A’. 13. DW-3 Trilok Thakur is the scribe of the “will”. According to him, he was working as an Advocate at Sub­Tehsil Aut since 1987 to 1997. According to him, “will” was scribed at the instance of Kali Devi. Kali Devi was in a perfect state of mind and got the “will” scribed. He read over and explained the “will” to Kali Devi. Kali Devi after admitting the same to be true and correct put her signatures. Thereafter, witnesses also put their signatures on the “will”. He has proved the “will” Ex.DW-3/A. 14. DW-4 Than is the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Nagwain. He had produced the record. According to him, Phulla Devi and Raj Kumari were shown as family members of Kali Devi. 15. DW-5 Krishan Pal is also resident of Nagwain. According to him, Kali Devi was ill and was not in a position to walk. Defendant and his father Sohan Lal are her neighbourers. According to her, Kali Devi executed a “will” Ex.DW-3/A in favour of son of Sohan Lal. Sohan Lal used to look after Kali Devi. The “will” was executed in the house of Kali Devi. The “will” was scribed by Trilok Thakur, Advocate in the presence of Uttam Chand, Moti Ram, Mahinder Pal and Karam Chand. He had identified Kali Devi. On 19.3.1993, Kali Devi called the Tehsildar. He was again called as the identifier. Witnesses Moti Ram and Mahinder Pal were also present. Kali Devi presented the “will” to the Tehsildar. 16. DW-6 Sohan Lal is the father of the defendant. According to him, Kali Devi was his neighbour. She had good relations with the defendant’s family. She was in the perfect state of mind. She was a literate lady and was the Pradhan of Mahila Mandal. 17. DW-7 Uttam Chand is also one of the witnesses of the “will”. He has deposed that he was called by the father of the defendant in the house of Kali Devi. He did not know the name of Advocate. He did not know the scribe of the “will”. 17. DW-7 Uttam Chand is also one of the witnesses of the “will”. He has deposed that he was called by the father of the defendant in the house of Kali Devi. He did not know the name of Advocate. He did not know the scribe of the “will”. He has stated that Kali Devi had given only two biswas of land in favour of the defendant. 18. PW-8 Mahinder Kumar is the maternal uncle of the defendant. He is also witness of the “will”. According to him, it was scribed by Trilok Thakur, Advocate in presence of the Krishan Pal, Moti Ram and Uttam Chand. It was registered on 19.3.1993. 19. DW-2 Deepak Kapoor, who is the propounder of the “will”, was not present. He was minor. According to him, his father has confectionary shop at Nagwain. Kali Devi belongs to their village. She was unmarried. The plaintiff is daughter of Phulla Devi. Phulla Devi and Kali Devi were real sisters. DW-2 Deepak Kapoor has admitted that Kali Devi was ailing with disease. His father used to help her. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was only 11 years old at the time of execution of the “will”. He has also admitted that his father has never helped her in his presence. DW-3 Trilok Thakur is an Advocate. He has scribed the “will”. In his cross- examination, he has stated that one person had called him to write the “will”. He did not know the name of that person. He did not know whether Kali Devi was having throat cancer. He has denied the suggestion that Kali Devi was bed ridden. DW- 1 Chet Ram is the Sub- Registrar. He had visited the house of Kali Devi. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know whether Kali Devi was suffering from cancer. He has denied that Kali Devi was bed ridden. It has come in the statement of RPW-2 Moti Ram, one of the attesting witnesses that Kali Devi was lying on the bed. Kali Devi has never given any statement. DW-6 Sohan Lal has also admitted that Kali Devi was bed ridden. According to one of the witnesses, i.e. DW-7 Uttam Chand, she has given only 2 bighas of land in favour of the defendant. However, DW-5 Krishan Pal has admitted that “will” was executed only of 0-2-15 bighas of land. 20. Kali Devi has never given any statement. DW-6 Sohan Lal has also admitted that Kali Devi was bed ridden. According to one of the witnesses, i.e. DW-7 Uttam Chand, she has given only 2 bighas of land in favour of the defendant. However, DW-5 Krishan Pal has admitted that “will” was executed only of 0-2-15 bighas of land. 20. What emerges from the facts narrated hereinabove is that Kali Devi was suffering from cancer. The alleged “will” Ex.DW-3/A was executed on 16.3.1993. Kali Devi died on 27.3.1993. The defendant is not closely related to Kali Devi. It is the plaintiff, who is closely related to Kali Devi. The father of defendant has taken keen interest in the execution of the “will”. The Defendant has not led any tangible evidence to establish that an application was filed before the Tehsildar for the registration of the “will” by visiting the house of Kali Devi. It has come even in the statement of defendant’s witnesses that she was bed ridden. One of the attesting witnesses, i.e. RPW-2 Moti Ram has not supported the case of the defendant. He has categorically deposed that Kali Devi was not conscious. No question was put by the Tehsildar to Kali Devi. RPW-3 Parma Nand has also deposed that Kali Devi was physically and mentally not alert. The witnesses have not stated that they have seen Kali Devi signing the “will” and thereafter they have also put their signatures as witnesses in presence of the testatrix. There is also discrepancy with regard to share mentioned in the “will”. DW-3 has also admitted that he has not maintained any record with regard to execution of the documents. DW-6 even did not know who has produced the document before the Tehsildar. It was for the propounder of the ‘will’ to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the “will”. The defendant has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the “will”. DW-8 Mahinder Pal has admitted that when he had gone to visit Kali Devi, all the witnesses were present there. He did not know the person, who called the Tehsildar. DW-8 Mahinder Pal is the uncle of defendant. Defendant’s father has taken keen interest at the time of execution of the “will”. DW-7 Uttam Chand did not know, who scribed the “will”. 21. Mr. G.R. Palsara has also submitted that the “will” was registered. He did not know the person, who called the Tehsildar. DW-8 Mahinder Pal is the uncle of defendant. Defendant’s father has taken keen interest at the time of execution of the “will”. DW-7 Uttam Chand did not know, who scribed the “will”. 21. Mr. G.R. Palsara has also submitted that the “will” was registered. The registration of the “will” does not dispense with the requirement of removing of suspicious circumstances. 22. This Court in Baru Ram and others versus Smt. Kishani Devi, 1992 (1) Sim. L.C. 115 has held as under: “5. Sh. K D. Sood, learned Counsel for Sh. Baru Ram and others, has urged that since the will was registered, presumption of its correctness and genuineness arises in the facts and circumstances of the present case This argument deserves to be rejected outrightly in view of the law laid down in Gopal Das and another v. Sri Thakurji and other, AIR 1943 Privy Council 83, that even after the endorsement of Registrar made under section 60 (2) of the Registration Act is proved, it remains to be show that the person admitting execution before the Registrar was Balandu The registration of the will does not create any presumption of its genuineness, which is to be proved independently and statement of the Registrar is only a piece of evidence which is to be assessed to judge how far it proves that the execution of will is in accordance with section 63 of Indian Succession Act It is to be kept in mind that the Registrar cannot be statutory attesting witness.” 23. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial question of law involved in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.