Judgment: M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. The appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2000 passed by the Court of District Judge Datia (Smt. Sushma Shrivastava) in Civil Suit No. 27-A/99 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 whereby, the plaintiff has been declared the owner of the disputed house on the basis of will Ex. P/5 and the sale deed dated 13.12.93 Ex. P/9 executed by respondent No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi in favour of the appellant/defendant has been declared as null and void. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as defendant no. 1 and 'respondent no. 1' as plaintiff and respondent no. 2 as 'defendant no. 2'. The undisputed facts are that- Sudama Prasad was the owner of the disputed house situated in Bharat Mohalla Datia described in para 1 of the plaint. He purchased this house by registered sale deed in the year 1979 and died issueless leaving behind his wife Smt. Krishnadevi who executed a sale deed dated 13.12.93 in favour of the defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed Ex-P/9. 2. The facts in brief of the plaint are that Sudama Prasad after purchasing the said house pulled it down and built a new house at the same place. In the south, there was also another property in the ownership of Sudama Prasad who had sold that property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed in year 1985. At that time, tenants of Sudama Prasad lived in his house, therefore Sudama Prasad began to live with the plaintiff's family. Father of the plaintiff was tenant of Sudama Prasad, so they had close relation. The plaintiff has further pleaded that Sudama Prasad had no heir so he had great love and affection for the plaintiff and executed a will on 9.4.92 Ex-P/5 in his favour. Sudama Prasad died on 2.5.92. After the death of Sudama Prasad, plaintiff became the owner of the disputed house. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi had no right to sell the disputed property. However, defendant No. 1 Datar Singh got the sale deed fraudulently executed from Krishna Devi in his favour on 13.12.93. That sale deed is null and void against the title and ownership of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi had no right to sell the disputed property. However, defendant No. 1 Datar Singh got the sale deed fraudulently executed from Krishna Devi in his favour on 13.12.93. That sale deed is null and void against the title and ownership of the plaintiff. On the basis of above facts, suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on 6.1.94. 3. The defendant No. 2 Smt. Krishna Devi has not contested the suit, besides, she filed a written statement admitting the contents of the plaint. 4. The defendant No. 1 denying the allegations of the plaint has pleaded that Sudama Prasad had never executed the will dated 9.4.92 (Ex. P/5) in favour of the plaintiff. The said will is a fake document which was prepared after the death of Sudama Prasad. The defendant has further submitted that there was no good family relation between plaintiff's father and Sudama Prasad. It is also denied in the written statement that Sudama Prasad had no heir so he had great love for the plaintiff. After the death of Sudama Prasad, his wife Smt. Krishan Devi became the owner of the disputed house and she executed the sale deed dated 13.12.1993 in favour of the defendant No. 1 after receiving the consideration and, possession of the disputed house was given by her to the defendant No. 1. 5. The learned trial Court after framing six issues and after recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the evidence has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as the will Ex-P/5 was found proved in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the sale deed dated 13.12.93 has been declared as null and void. 6. The following issues crop up for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether or not the Will Ex-P/5 was executed by Sudama Prasad in favour of plaintiff regarding disputed house? (ii) Whether the findings of the learned trial Court are based on proper reasonings? 7. Assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court are not only perverse, illegal and irrational to the recorded evidence but also superficial as the learned trial Court has not dealt with the evidence meticulously in the depth. 7. Assailing the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court are not only perverse, illegal and irrational to the recorded evidence but also superficial as the learned trial Court has not dealt with the evidence meticulously in the depth. The learned counsel further states that there is no mention of the disputed house in the alleged will Ex. P/5 on the basis of which, the plaintiff has claimed his ownership in the disputed property. There was no reason for testator Sudama Prasad Shrivastava to execute the will in favour of minor Pushpendra Singh Kaurav who was neither his relative nor his close associate. When the alleged will was executed by Sudama Prasad, his wife Krishna Devi was alive. No reason was given in the will Ex. P/5 as to why, Sudama Prasad's wife Krishna Devi was deprived of the property whereas, Sudama Prasad had only this house for residence. 8. The counsel further argues that the will is a fake and fabricated document which was prepared on plain paper after the death of Sudama Prasad. The attesting witnesses are neither the relatives of Sudama Prasad nor his neighbours. The plaintiff master Pushpendra Singh's (aged 8 years) father Pancham Singh has prepared this will in connivance with his friends and professional persons giving some allurement to them. Both Krishna Devi's statement and written statement have no relevance to prove the plaintiff's case as she has made admission regarding the will in favour of the plaintiff after having sold the disputed house vide registered sale deed dated 13.12.1993 Ex. P/9 in favour of the defendant. Plaintiff's counsel further pleads that the execution and attestation of the will has not been proved by the plaintiff satisfactorily despite the fact that the learned trial Court erroneously believing the plaintiff's evidence, has decreed the suit in his favour whereas, the defendant has purchased the disputed property vide registered sale deed from Sudama Prasad's wife. 9. Combating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argues that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on proper reasonings according to recorded evidence and further adds that the execution and attestation of the will has been proved by the statement of both the attesting witnesses. 9. Combating the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff argues that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on proper reasonings according to recorded evidence and further adds that the execution and attestation of the will has been proved by the statement of both the attesting witnesses. Besides, the will has been proved by the statement of Notary Madan Mohan Pathak (PW3) as well as the statement of Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) who drafted the will under the direction of Sudama Prasad. Learned counsel further submits, where discretion has been properly exercised by learned trial Court holding the will having been proved successfully, there is no reason having been shown on behalf of the appellant to interfere in the findings of the impugned judgment. Learned counsel requests the Court to dismiss the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court. 10. Arguments of both the parties were heard and record of the trial Court was perused. 11. On perusal of the alleged will Ex. P5, it becomes clear that the will is not registered. It is also true that registration of the will is not necessary under any provision of law, but if a document is registered under the provision of Registration Act, it shall be presumed that the date and time on which a document is registered, are correct and there can be no suspicion of it's being antedated. On the contrary, a document can easily be prepared and fabricated by executing it antedated on a plain paper. 12. The plaintiff has examined five witnesses for proving the will. Pancham Singh (PW1) father of the plaintiff Pushpendra Singh minor has deposed in para 4 that Sudama Prasad Shrivastava had executed the will Ex. P/5 on 9.4.1992 in favour of his son Pushpendra Singh. The said will was drafted by the Advocate Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) and signed by Shivkumar (PW2) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) as attesting witnesses and was notarized by Madan Mohan Pathak Notary Advocate (PW3). All the five witnesses have categorically deposed in their statements that the will Ex. P/5 was executed and signed by Sudama Prasad and when the will was being executed by Sudama Prasad, his wife Krishna was also present there who gave her consent in execution of the will. All the five witnesses have categorically deposed in their statements that the will Ex. P/5 was executed and signed by Sudama Prasad and when the will was being executed by Sudama Prasad, his wife Krishna was also present there who gave her consent in execution of the will. It would be apt to mention here that PW/1's statement was recorded on 11.2.98 and 29.4.98 whereas the statement of Shivkumar PW/2, Madan Mohan Pathak PW/3 and Dayal Singh Gurjar PW/4 were recorded on 22.6.98 and statements of PW/5 and PW/6 were recorded on 8.9.98. Whenever statements of the witnesses are recorded on different dates, there is possibility of the witnesses doctoring their statements by reading and knowing of the facts which are asked in cross-examination. 13. The will Ex-P/5 was executed on 9.4.92 in favour of plaintiff Pushpendra Singh, who was then a minor. His father Panchan Singh (PW/1) got the Will Ex-P/5 executed from Sudama Prasad in favour of his minor son. In para 15 of Panchan Singh (PW/1)'s statement it has come on record that he is double M.A. in Hindi and Political Science. In para 7 and 9 it has also come on record that he is a teacher by profession and had been ZILA MANTRI of teacher association in the year 1993 and presently is the President of it. In para 9, it has also come on record that he is a bonafide resident of village Khurd, District Bhind and as per para 11 of his statement, he is not relative of Sudama Prasad. The other witnesses Shivkumar (PW2) in para 7 and Madanmohan Pathak (PW3) in para 6 and Krishna Devi (DW2) in para 17 have also deposed the same facts. Indisputably, it has also come on record that Pancham Singh (PW1) is not related to Sudama Prasad. When the alleged will was executed, Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of Sudama was alive. In para 13 of his statement it has also come on record that Sudama Prasad had one sister. In para 15 it has been stated by Pancham Singh that there had been a civil dispute going on between him and Sudama Prasad regarding the adjacent property which was earlier purchased by Pancham Singh from Sudama Prasad. 14. In para 13 of his statement it has also come on record that Sudama Prasad had one sister. In para 15 it has been stated by Pancham Singh that there had been a civil dispute going on between him and Sudama Prasad regarding the adjacent property which was earlier purchased by Pancham Singh from Sudama Prasad. 14. Indisputably, from the statement of the witnesses it has also come on record that both the attesting witnesses namely Shivkumar (PW/2) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW/5) are neither Sudama Prasad's relatives nor do they live in Sudama Prasad's neighbourhood. Shivkumar (PW2) resides at Bhosale Ki Gali, Richhara Phatak and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) at Richhara Phatak whereas Sudama Prasad resided at Bharat Garh Datia. It is also pertinent to mention here that Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW/5) by profession is a teacher who works in Pancham Singh's Department. 15. Pancham Singh (PW1) in para 10 and Shivkumar (PW2) in para 6 have deposed that when the will was typed, Sudama Prasad told the Advocate Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) about the disputed house situated at Bharat Garh, Datia. Both the witnesses have admitted in cross-examination that no description has been mentioned about the disputed house in the said will Ex. P/5. However, Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) who had drafted the will under the direction of Sudama Prasad has deposed in para 5 that he was not told by Sudama Prasad specifically about the disputed house rather, he was told about only movable and immovable property. The same facts have been deposed by the another attesting witness Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5). The contradictory statements of the witnesses create great suspicion about whether, Sudama Prasad had given any direction for the execution of will Ex. P/5. If the testator Sudama Prasad had got the disputed house mentioned in the will Ex. P/5 why it was not mentioned in it specifically. This fact creates suspicion about the will whether, in fact it was actually got dictated and executed by Sudama Prasad. It is settled in law that If any suspicion arises in execution of a will, it is the duty of the propounder to explain all the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court. 16. In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. This fact creates suspicion about the will whether, in fact it was actually got dictated and executed by Sudama Prasad. It is settled in law that If any suspicion arises in execution of a will, it is the duty of the propounder to explain all the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court. 16. In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi Vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and Others (2006) 13 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. Para 33 of the judgment is as follows: 33. The burden of proof that the will has been validly executed and is a genuine document is on the propounder. The propounder is also required to prove that the testator has signed the will and that he had put his signature out of his own free will having a sound disposition of mind and understood the nature and effect thereof. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is brought on record, the onus of the propounder may be held to have been discharged. But, the onus would be on the applicant to remove the suspicion by leading sufficient and cogent evidence if there exists any. In the case of proof of will, a signature of a testator alone would not prove the execution thereof, if his mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated. However, if a defence of fraud, coercion or undue influence is raised, the burden would be on the caveator. (See Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage and Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty.) Subject to above, proof of a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document. 17. Further, in K. Laxmanan Vs. Thekkayil Padmini and others., 2009 (2) MPLJ (S.C.) 525, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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. 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 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. 18. In a decision of Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra vs. Champa Bai reported in AIR 1965 SC 354, it has been pointed out that in all cases in which a Will is prepared under circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court that it does not express the mind of the testator, or that it was prepared under highly suspicious circumstances, it is for the propounder of the will to remove that suspicion. Where it appears that the propounder has taken prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefit, that itself is generally treated as suspicious circumstance attending execution of the Will. 19. In para 4 and 18 of the witness Pancham Singh (PW1)'s statement, it has come on record that he had come to Datia in the year 1977. Thereafter, he lived in Sudama Prasad's house as a tenant and after sometime, he had lived jointly with Sudama Prasad as his son. His marriage was performed by Sudama Prasad since he had no issue and owing to which, Sudama Prasad executed the alleged will Ex. P/5 in favour of his minor son Pushpendra Singh. The plaintiff has not produced any single document showing that he had been living with Sudama Prasad since the year 1977. However, the alleged will was executed on 9.4.1992. Though the plaintiff has tried to justify his pleadings by producing the document ration card Ex. P/1, bill of electricity Ex. P/2, house tax receipt Ex. P/3 and certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad Datia Ex. P/4 relating to house No. 804, but, the said documents do not corroborate the pleadings and statement of Pancham Singh. Ex. P/1 does not bear any date of issuing it. P/1, bill of electricity Ex. P/2, house tax receipt Ex. P/3 and certificate issued by Nagar Palika Parishad Datia Ex. P/4 relating to house No. 804, but, the said documents do not corroborate the pleadings and statement of Pancham Singh. Ex. P/1 does not bear any date of issuing it. It appears that this document is prepared fabricatedly only to show that the Sudama Prasad was the member of the plaintiff's family. Other documents are not related to the disputed house. 20. As per statement of Pancham Singh, if he had been living for a long time with Sudama Prasad why his name was not entered in the voter's list in the Sudama Prasad's house. If Sudama Prasad treated him like a son and he was living with him as a family member, why he purchased the adjacent property from Sudama Prasad in the year 1982. (As per his statement para 12), Sudama Prasad was neither relative of Pancham Singh nor was he related to his caste. In view of the facts, it is inferred that the story put forth by the plaintiff for executing the alleged will Ex. P/5 in favour of his son Pushpendra Singh is not found credible. 21. It is true that all the plaintiff's witnesses have deposed in their statements that when the will Ex. P/5 was executed, Sudama Prasad's wife was present along with him. However, Sudama Prasad's wife Krishna Devi's presence is not mentioned in Ex. P/5 in any manner. She has not put her signature for giving her consent. If she had been present at the time of execution of the will and she had given her consent, why these facts were not mentioned in Ex. P/5. These circumstances also lead to the suspicion about execution of the will. 22. Indisputably, Sudama Prasad had no issue. As per the recorded evidence of both the parties, Sudama Prasad's wife Smt. Krishna Devi was alive when the alleged will was executed in favour of Pushpendra Singh. Why Sudama Prasad's wife was deprived of succession to the property, no reason has been given in Ex. P/5 whereas, in para 10 of Shivkumar (PW2)'s statement and in para 4 of Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4)'s statement, it has come on record that Sudama Prasad and his wife Smt. Krishna Devi (DW2) lived together happily. There was no dispute between them. P/5 whereas, in para 10 of Shivkumar (PW2)'s statement and in para 4 of Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4)'s statement, it has come on record that Sudama Prasad and his wife Smt. Krishna Devi (DW2) lived together happily. There was no dispute between them. Pancham Singh (PW1) himself has not stated in his statement that Smt. Krishna Devi did not live with her husband. If it was true, what was the reason for Sudama Prasad to divest his wife of the house in which, they lived happily (disputed property) especially as he had no other house for residence. No explanation in this regard has been given in the will Ex. P/5. Besides, there was no plausible reason for Sudama Prasad to bequeath his entire movable and immovable property to the plaintiff who was totally unrelated to his family. 23. On perusal of the alleged will Ex. P/5, it becomes clear that the Ex. P/5 does not bear the photograph of Sudama Prasad. Through this will, entire movable and immovable property belonging to Sudama Prasad was given by him to the plaintiff. Moreover, Pancham Singh (PW1) has admitted in para 21 that after the death of Sudama Prasad, all the household articles were received by his son and Smt. Krishna Devi did not receive anything. It appears quite unnatural and in-convincing as there was no reason for Sudama Prasad for not giving any household article to his wife rather leaving her in hand to mouth position. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalyan Singh vs. Chhoti and others AIR 1990 SC 396 , had an occasion to consider an analogous case where the wife was practically disinherited. The Hon. Court has observed as under: The will in the present case, constituting the plaintiff as a sole legatee with no right whatever to the testator's wife seems to be un-natural. It casts a serious doubt on genuineness of the will. The will has not been produced for very many years before the court or public authorities even though there were occasions to produce it for asserting plaintiff's title to the property. The plaintiff was required to remove these suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record. He has failed to discharge his duty and the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the will as not genuine. 24. The plaintiff was required to remove these suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record. He has failed to discharge his duty and the Hon'ble Apex Court has rejected the will as not genuine. 24. In para 15 of Panchanam Singh (PW1)'s statement and in para 14 of Krishna Devi (DW2)'s statement, it has also come on record that there had been dispute in the civil Court between Pancham Singh (PW1) and Sudama Prasad about the adjacent property which was sold by Sudama Prasad to Pancham Singh. In these circumstances, it is concluded that relation between Sudama Prasad and Pancham Singh (PW1) was not cordial and so the possibility of execution of Ex. P/5 in favour of the plaintiff was bleak and far-fetched. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent strenuously argued that Smt. Krishna Devi has admitted in her statement as well as written statement that the will Ex. P/5 was executed by her husband in favour of the plaintiff and she was present there when the will was being executed and so the will should be considered as genuine and valid. The submissions of the learned counsel though attractive yet do not have merit as Smt. Krishna Devi (DW2) herself executed the sale deed dated 13.12.1993 Ex. P/9 (Ex. D/1) in favour of the defendant no. 1 regarding disputed house showing herself to be the owner of the disputed property giving the possession of the same to him as well. If Smt. Krishna Devi was not owner of the disputed house why she sold the house to the defendant no. 1. Before executing the sale deed, she never admitted the existence of the will Ex. P/5. After parting her interest and ownership in the property, she made admissions in favour of the plaintiff to damage the rights of the defendant no. 1. After parting interest, if any admission made by a transferor against the interest of a transferee that does not affect the right of the transferee. In Shafiullah Khan Vs. Abdul Wahab 1963 JLJ SN 14, the Hon'ble High court has held that the statement of a person could be an admission only if it was made during the continuance of his interest. But once he has parted with his interest and property, his admission is not admissible under Section 18 of the Evidence Act. In Shafiullah Khan Vs. Abdul Wahab 1963 JLJ SN 14, the Hon'ble High court has held that the statement of a person could be an admission only if it was made during the continuance of his interest. But once he has parted with his interest and property, his admission is not admissible under Section 18 of the Evidence Act. It would be manifestly unjust that a person who has parted with his interest and property should be empowered to divest the right of another claiming under him by any statement which he may choose to make subsequently. 26. Though Smt. Krishna Devi has deposed in her statement admitting all the allegations made in the plaint and corroborated the execution of the will Ex. P/5 yet her statement makes the execution of Ex. P/5 doubtful as Smt. Krishna Devi has stated in para 14 that Sudama Prasad had executed the will Ex. P/5, 4-5 years before his death. Admittedly as per Ex. P/6 the death certificate, Sudama Prasad died on 2.5.1992 and date of alleged will is 9.4.1992. If the will was executed by Sudama Prasad 4-5 years before his death, how come it bears the date of execution as 9.4.1992. Besides, Smt. Krishna Devi (DW2) has deposed in para 15 that when the will Ex. P/5 was executed, the plaintiff Pushpendra (who was minor aged 8-9 years) went with his father Pancham Singh to the Court, whereas, no plaintiff's witness has testified this fact in his statement. The above circumstances make it clear that the alleged will Ex. P/5 was not executed by Sudama Prasad in his life time. Smt. Krishna Devi had given the false statement under Pancham Singh's influence as she has admitted in para 16 that Pancham Singh manages to arrange her food, clothes and maintenance and Pancham Singh (PW1) has admitted in para 6 that Smt. Krishna Devi is living with him. The circumstances lead to the conclusion that after execution of the sale deed Ex. P/9, Pancham Singh (PW1) had won-over Smt. Krishna Devi for helping him in the litigation having been filed by him against the defendant no. 1 because, Pancham Singh had purchased the adjacent property from Sudama Prasad on which, he has constructed a house in which, he has been living since the time it was constructed. P/9, Pancham Singh (PW1) had won-over Smt. Krishna Devi for helping him in the litigation having been filed by him against the defendant no. 1 because, Pancham Singh had purchased the adjacent property from Sudama Prasad on which, he has constructed a house in which, he has been living since the time it was constructed. It is quite possible that Pancham Singh had interest in the disputed property and has wanted it for extension of his house. After failure of his plan as the sale deed was executed by Smt. Krishna Devi, he filed this suit with the connivance of Smt. Krishna Devi. 27. The witness Shivkumar (PW2) in para 10 and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) in para 6 have testified that Sudama Prasad told them to reach the Advocate's office one day before the execution of Ex. P/5. The statements of both the witnesses appear to be baseless as both the witnesses were neither relatives of Sudama Prasad nor resided in his neighborhood. The statements are totally concocted. 28. In para 11 of the statement of Pancham Singh (PW1), para 8 of the statement of Shivkumar (PW2) and para 7 of the statement of Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4), it has come on record that Pancham Singh has actively participated in the execution of Ex. P/5 and he went everywhere along with Sudama Prasad. Though the alleged will was not being executed in favour of Pancham Singh, yet beneficiary of the will is Pancham Singh's minor son Pushpendra Singh. The attesting witness Rajesh Mohan Shrivastva (PW5) being teacher is a colleague of Pancham Singh. Other witness Shivkumar (PW2) is also not concerned with the testator Sudama Prasad. If Sudama Prasad was really interested in execution of the will, he would have easily got the will registered in the registration office since registration office exists in Datia, District Headquarters. The above circumstances also lead to the conclusion that the said will Ex. P/5 was got prepared by Pancham Singh in connivance with his associates. 29. The Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Gorantla Thataiah vs. Thotakura Venkata Subbaiah and others reported in AIR 1968 SC 1332 , had observed that in a case in which a will is prepared under circumstances which raise the suspicion of the Court that it does not express the mind of the testator, it is for those who propound the will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances must be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If, however, the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him, that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the Court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious manner. 30. The witness Madan Mohan Pathak Advocate (PW3) deposing in his statement has testified that he notarized the will Ex. P/5 which was produced before him by Sudama Prasad and he made entry on page 11 at Sr. No. 35 in this regard. The witness has further deposed that he got signatures of Sudama Prasad, attesting witnesses Shivkumar (PW2), Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW3) and Advocate Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) who identified the testator, in the register Ex. P/10 on page 12. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of defendant no. 1. Several infirmities in his statement have come on record. On perusal of the register Ex. P/10, it has been found that there is no note of certification in the beginning of the register about paging. The witness has admitted in para 3 that after the cover page, he has written the number 63 himself but he is unable to explain its meaning. Further, the witness has deposed that on the same page, 184 affidavits, 10 copies and 67 agreements total 261 have been written but there is no mention of the said will in it. 31. It is clear from the perusal of the register that he made the entries of the documents from the serial number one on each date and has not maintained the serial number in continuity throughout the register. In para 4 of the statement, it has come on record that between the pages 13 and 14, there is blank space of four or five lines in between serial number 36 and 37. On page 105 two entries as 60A and 60B have been made in the register after serial number 60. The witness has further deposed in para 4 that the entry of page no. 10 has been made in the book no. 253 but the said book was not brought by him before the court when his statement was recorded. On page 105 two entries as 60A and 60B have been made in the register after serial number 60. The witness has further deposed in para 4 that the entry of page no. 10 has been made in the book no. 253 but the said book was not brought by him before the court when his statement was recorded. The witness has admitted that there is no entry in the register till 13.4.1992 after the said entry of the document on page 12 at serial no. 37. On close scrutiny of page no. 11 of the register Ex. P/10, it is clear that the entries from Serial No. 29 to 34 are in the same handwriting and with the same pen used for them, whereas, the entry no. 35 is altogether different with respect to handwriting and the pen used to write it. The said facts lead to the inferences that the entry of serial no. 35 in Ex. P/10 has been added and interpolated subsequently. An antedated entry could be possible as the witness has made the practice of making entries from serial number one on each date and used to leave some space blank below the last entry so as to use the blank space for entering a document in the notary register otherwise, there was no adequate reason to change the order of serial number on each date. The said circumstances create suspicion and disbelief regarding the validity of Ex. P/10. It is further pertinent to mention here that receipt book whereby, the fee for notarization was received by Madanmohan Pathak (PW3) from Sudama Prasad as per para 22 of the statement of Pancham Singh has not been produced. This particular document has great significance in this respect, as the serial number and date of the receipt book can no way be changed. On the basis of aforesaid fictitious statement, it cannot be held that Sudama Prasad had got the will Ex. P/5 notarized by Madanmohan Pathak Advocate (PW3). The entry Ex. P/10 clearly appears to be a fabricated one. 32. The witness Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) has deposed in para 2 that the will Ex. P.5 was got typed by him by Ashok Saxena typist. P/5 notarized by Madanmohan Pathak Advocate (PW3). The entry Ex. P/10 clearly appears to be a fabricated one. 32. The witness Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) has deposed in para 2 that the will Ex. P.5 was got typed by him by Ashok Saxena typist. As per statement of Pancham Singh (PW1), Shivkumar (PW2) and Rajesh Mohan Pathak (PW5), it has come on record that they are not aware of the fact that where and by whom the will Ex. P/5 was got typed. The name of typist Ashok Saxena has not been mentioned on will Ex. P/5 and his statement was not got recorded. There is no explanation on record as to why, the name was concealed. This circumstance also leads to suspicion. 33. Indisputably, in para 2 and 12 of Pancham Singh (PW1)'s statement, it has come on record that he has purchased the adjacent property from Sudama Prasad in the year 1985. It was quite natural for him to have the sale deed in his own possession. By producing of it, the authenticated signature or thumb impression of Sudama Prasad could have been produced on record by Pancham Singh (PW1) for perusal and comparison with the disputed signature but it was not done so. It is not clear as to why the authenticated signature of Sudama Prasad has been concealed and this gives rise to the presumption that if said signature of Sudama Prasad had been produced, the disputed signature would not have been tallied with the authenticated signature. 34. Here it is also noticeable feature that after the death of Sudama Prasad, neither a probate was obtained by the plaintiff on the basis of the alleged will Ex. P/5 nor alleged will was publicly shown by him till execution of sale deed Ex. P/9 by Smt. Krishna Devi in favour of the defendant no. 1. In Pushpawati and others Vs. P/5 nor alleged will was publicly shown by him till execution of sale deed Ex. P/9 by Smt. Krishna Devi in favour of the defendant no. 1. In Pushpawati and others Vs. Chandraja Kadamba and Others AIR 1972 SC 2492 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the signature of testator is challenged as a forged signature and the will does not come from the custody of a public authority or a family solicitor, the fact that the disposition made in the will were unnatural, improbable or unfair, would undoubtedly create some doubt about the will, especially, when the document is unregistered and comes from the custody of a person who is the major beneficiary under the Will. 35. Though it appears that the statement of the plaintiff's witness have some kind of similarity about the execution of the will Ex. P/5 as they are well educated and had the opportunity of interaction with one another because, the statement of the witnesses were recorded on different dates, on this basis, it cannot be held proved that the will Ex. P/5 was actually executed by Sudama Prasad, having considered the facts and circumstances in this regard. The Apex Court in H. Venkatachala Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , it was held to render the Will infirm unless the propounder cleared the suspicion with clear and satisfactory evidence. Mere execution of Will, thus, by producing scribe or attesting witness or proving genuineness of testator's thumb impressions by themselves was not sufficient to establish validity of Will unless suspicious circumstances, usual or special, are ruled out and the Courts conscience is satisfied not only on execution but about its authenticity. 36. Despite the fact that the learned trial Court has found the will proved in favour of plaintiff, the findings recorded by the trial Court are not based on proper reasons and meticulous appreciation of the evidence. The learned trial Court has just mentioned the statements of the witnesses but has not gone into depth of the evidence and circumstances as discussed earlier. Approach of the learned trial Court in appreciation of evidence and contemplation is not convincing and acceptable. 37. It is correct that Smt. Krishna Devi has pleaded in her written statement that the sale deed Ex. P/9 was got executed fraudulently by the defendant no. Approach of the learned trial Court in appreciation of evidence and contemplation is not convincing and acceptable. 37. It is correct that Smt. Krishna Devi has pleaded in her written statement that the sale deed Ex. P/9 was got executed fraudulently by the defendant no. 1 from her and the plaintiff has also challenged the validity and propriety of the sale deed Ex. P/9 in this suit. However, Smt. Krishna Devi had not filed any suit for cancellation to the Ex. P/9 in her life time. Mere assertions in the written statement regarding fraudulent transfer do not have any substantial value. Moreover, the plaintiff is a third party for challenging the legality of the sale deed Ex. P/9 on the basis of fraud and considerations. 38. Having taken into account the aforesaid recorded evidence and circumstances, the Court is led to the conclusion that the will dated 9.4.1992 Ex. P/5 is a fake and forged document and it has been got prepared by Pancham Singh (PW1) with the connivance of Shivkumar (PW2), Madanmohan Pathak (PW3), Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5). On the basis of the alleged will Ex. P/5, the plaintiff does not acquire any title to the disputed house. The statement of defendant no. 1's witnesses are found credible as the disputed house was owned by Sudama Prasad who died before his wife Smt. Krishna Devi. After the death of Sudama Prasad, his wife became the owner of his property and she executed the sale deed Ex. P/9 in favour of defendant no. 1 giving the possession of the disputed house to him and the said deed has not been cancelled by any competent court so far and so, the defendant no. 1 has acquired the title and possession to the disputed house. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set-aside. 39. Accordingly, allowing the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff's suit is hereby dismissed. The costs of this appeal and the suit shall be borne by the plaintiff/respondent. 40. The decree be drawn up accordingly. 41. Before parting with this judgment, this Court deems it fit to pass an order for taking legal action against Pancham Singh (PW1), Shivkumar (PW2), Madanmohan Pathak (PW3), Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) who have conspired and prepared the fake and forged will Ex. P/5. 40. The decree be drawn up accordingly. 41. Before parting with this judgment, this Court deems it fit to pass an order for taking legal action against Pancham Singh (PW1), Shivkumar (PW2), Madanmohan Pathak (PW3), Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) who have conspired and prepared the fake and forged will Ex. P/5. It is essential in the interest of justice to pass this order as it is often seen that the fake wills are prepared with the help of forged documents to usurp the property of deceased persons. The act of the aforesaid five persons comes in the purview of perjury which is practiced unchecked with a great license and is responsible for huge amount of litigation that the Courts are burdened with. This evil needs to be stumped out ruthlessly. The Courts always avoid to take action against the erring person inspite of finding the document to be forged. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment along with certified copy of the will Ex. P/5 to Superintendent of Police Datia with the direction to take legal action against Pancham Singh (PW1), Shivkumar (PW2), Madanmohan Pathak (PW3), Dayal Singh Gurjar (PW4) and Rajesh Mohan Shrivastava (PW5) for preparation of fake and forged will Ex. P/5. The details of the said persons be enclosed with the direction.