JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Defendant No.1 Gilja Ram is in second appeal before this Court. He is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7.6.2003 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in civil appeal No. 25-G/XIII/2001, whereby the trial Court judgment and decree dated 29.12.2000 passed in civil suit No.60/99/94, has been affirmed and the appeal dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are real sisters. They are daughters of deceased Relo born to her from the loins of Masadi. Defendant No.1 Gilja Ram is step brother of plaintiffs and defendant No.2, born to one Rani with whom the deceased Masadi had solemnized customary marriage. The deceased Relo was owner-in-possession of the land to the extent of ½ share comprised in Khata No.28, Khatauni No.69 to 76, Khasra Nos. 54, 178, 321, 324, 364, 369, 1052, 1054, 1069, 53, 60, 168, 169, 175, 359, 461, 500, 1070 to 1072, 1079, 1081, 1087, 1122, 52, 172 179, 459, 1038, 1039, 1049, 1073, 1077, 1083, 1124, 51, 59, 61, 173, 361, 458, 1034, 1035, 1048, 1050, 1074, 1076, 1082, 1025, 501, 507, 55, 63, 174, 176, 362, 460, 1036, 1037, 1045, 1051, 1078 1080, 1123, 170, 171, 49, 50, 56, 58, 64, 177, 499, 5.5, 1019, 1020, 1044, 1054 Kitta 78 area 0-03-19 Hectares, situated in Mohal Jee, Mauza Kathog, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to succeed the suit land in the share of their mother Relo along with defendant No.2 in equal shares on the basis of natural succession, however, defendant No.1 managed to execute a false, fictitious and frivolous Will (Ex.DW-1/A) from her on 7.4.1988. He even managed to get the mutation of the suit land attested in his favour vide mutation No.118 and 92 on 8.1.1994. They allegedly asked him to admit their claim so far as the suit land is concerned, but of no avail. Hence the suit. 3. The stand of the contesting defendant No.1 Gilja in a nut shell is that Relo was being looked after by him during her life time, therefore in lieu of the services he rendered to her, she bequeathed the suit land to him by executing the Will on 7.4.1988, which according to him, is genuine and authentic document. 4. Learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:- 1. 4. Learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:- 1. Whether deceased Smt. Relo has executed a valid =Will' in favour of defendant No.1? OPD-1 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction? OPP 5. Relief.? 5. The parties were put to trial on the issues so framed and after recording the evidence on both sides as well as affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties on both sides dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.12.2000. 6. Learned lower appellate Court in appeal preferred by defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, has affirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. 7. Defendant No.1 is now before this Court with the submissions that Will Ex.DW1/A is valid and genuine document having been duly proved so, from the evidence available on record, however, both the Courts below allegedly failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its right perspective, on account of which the judgment and decree under challenge has vitiated and even perverse also and as such has been sought to be quashed being not legally and factually sustainable. 8. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:- ?1. Whether the Courts below erred in holding that the will was surrounding by suspicious circumstances simply because other natural heirs have been excluded and that the beneficiary of the will was present at the time of execution of the will? 2. Whether the findings of the courts below that the attestator was not in sound disposing mind are perverse and not supportable by evidence on record.? 9. It is seen from the record that both the Courts below have not declared the Will Ex.DW-1/A as illegal, null and void only on account of the same excludes the natural heirs of the testatrix deceased Relo, but also on account of shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Both the Courts below have formulated such opinion on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The present, as a matter of fact, is a case of concurrent findings. Both the Courts below have formulated such opinion on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. The present, as a matter of fact, is a case of concurrent findings. It is well settled at this stage, if both Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on appreciation of the evidence available on record the same should normally be not interfered with by the High Court in second appeal unless and until perverse or not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence. 10. This Court in Krishan versus Tulki Devi, 2013 (1) Him.L.R. 338, has discussed in detail as to what constitutes the execution of a legal and valid Will. 11. It is thus crystal clear that in terms of the provisions contained under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the Will, a solemn document, the conditions precedent to constitute legal and valid execution thereof are that the testator while in sound disposing mind must get the Will scribed into writing and admit the contents thereof to be true and correct as well as the sign the same in token thereof in the presence of two marginal witnesses. The marginal witnesses must see the testator while putting his signature on the Will whereas he should see the marginal witnesses while putting their signatures thereon. The propounder should not take any part in execution of the Will. The other factors such as the integrity of the marginal witnesses, veracity of the evidence having come on record by way of their statements, reasons for exclusion of natural heirs, if any, and the quality of other and further evidence available on record also weigh in the mind of the Court while considering the question of authenticity and genuineness of a document like Will. 12. As noticed hereinabove, it is urged that the declaration of the Will Ex. DW-1/A as illegal, null and void on account of exclusion of natural heirs i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and that the testatrix was not in sound disposing mind, is not supported by any legal and acceptable evidence and on account of that the judgment and decree is vitiated and being perverse is not legally sustainable. DW-1/A as illegal, null and void on account of exclusion of natural heirs i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.2 and that the testatrix was not in sound disposing mind, is not supported by any legal and acceptable evidence and on account of that the judgment and decree is vitiated and being perverse is not legally sustainable. Such grounds raised to challenge the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree are, however, without any substance for the reason that both Courts below on appreciation of the evidence available on record in its right perspective have arrived at a conclusion that the Will is not a valid and genuine document and rather forged, fictitious and shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The manner in which the Will in dispute has been executed is doubtful right from the very beginning for the reason that cogent and reliable evidence suggesting that it is defendant No.2 alone, who used to look after the deceased during her life time is not proved on record beyond all reasonable doubt because one of the plaintiffs i.e. plaintiff No. 2 Misan Devi, while in the witness box as PW-2 tells us that it is she, who used to look after her mother deceased Relo during her life time, who according to her was living alone. It has come in her statement that she has been married nearby, at a walkable distance of five minutes from the house of deceased Relo. Therefore, it can reasonably be believed that the testatrix was not being looked after by the propounder defendant No.1, but by her daughter. PW-2 has further deposed that two of them were married by Masadi during his life time and the expenses incurred upon the marriage of remaining two sisters were born out by deceased Relo and by the two married sisters including herself. 13. The manner in which deceased Relo went to Tehsil for getting the Will executed in favour of defendant No.1 is also highly doubtful because it is difficult to believe that she went to Tehsil alone and was not accompanied by the propounder i.e. the defendant-appellant as he himself and Shri R.C. Dhiman have stated while in the witness-box as DW-4 and DW-1, respectively for the reason that Shri Lekh Raj DW-3, clerk of Shri R.C. Dhiman, Advocate in his cross-examination has stated that Relo came to them on foot with Gilja (defendant No.1). This discards the testimony of defendant No.1 and also Shri R.C. Dhiman, Advocate DW-1 that she had come alone to Tehsil. 14 On the other hand, PW-5 Ram Prakash a taxi driver, tells us that Gilja hired his taxi on 7.4.1988 by representing that he had to take his mother to Hospital. His mother was brought by Kaur Chand, the brother of Gilja on his back. She was not able to move here and there being paralytic. Her eyesight was also not good. She was also not in her senses. She was made to board his taxi which was got parked adjoining to the building of Tehsil, where some green papers were brought by Gilja and Kaur Chand. Something was got written therein from one person having beard. Relo remained seated throughout in the vehicle. Her thumb impressions were taken on those documents and she was not apprised anything about the contents of the documents. Shri Balbir Singh is a registered medical practitioner. Though he is not having any diploma or degree in medical side, however, practicing since 1982. He has disclosed his licence No.11849/84. As per his version also Relo was paralytic, hence she was not in sound disposing mind. The evidence, therefore, produced by the plaintiffs reveals that the Will Ex.DW-1/A is not the last Will of deceased Relo being shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 15. True it is that the defendant, in order to prove the execution of the Will by Relo, has examined the scribe Shri Jagan Nath DW-2 and the attesting witnesses S/Shri R.C. Dhiman, Advocate DW-1 and his clerk Lekh Raj, DW-3. The scribe DW-2, while in the witnesses box, had disclosed an altogether different story as according to him, the Will initially was reduced into writing in the names of Ami Chand, Gilja (Defendant No.1), Kaur Chand and Gian Chand, all real brothers, however, 3-4 persons came there and they quarreled with Relo. She on being annoyed, torn out the earlier scribed Will and executed the Will Ex.DW-1/A in the name of defendant No.1. The scribing of Will in the names of all the four brothers including defendant No.1 and the same thereafter torn out, itself is a circumstance, which reveals that the testatrix had no intention to bequeath her property to defendant No.1 alone. It remained unexplained as to who were the 3-4 persons quarreled with Relo. The scribing of Will in the names of all the four brothers including defendant No.1 and the same thereafter torn out, itself is a circumstance, which reveals that the testatrix had no intention to bequeath her property to defendant No.1 alone. It remained unexplained as to who were the 3-4 persons quarreled with Relo. Such evidence rather leads to the only conclusion that the testatrix never executed any Will in the name of defendant No.1 on 7.4.1988. 16. Interestingly, defendant No. 1 is the client of Shri R.C. Dhiman, Advocate, DW-1. Not only in some previously instituted litigation, but represented the defendant in this case also. DW-3 Lekh Raj is his clerk. They both, in my considered opinion, are interested witnesses and as such both Courts below have rightly refused to rely upon their testimony. It cannot be believed that the testatrix during her life time used to come to the Court with defendant No.1 to defend the cases pertaining to him. When DW-3 admits that Relo had nothing to do with the cases pertaining to defendant therefore, it is highly unbelievable that Relo used to come to DW-1 or for that matter his Clerk DW-3. The story has been invented to give a colour to the whole issue and pursue the Court to believe that the Will Ex.DW-1/A being executed in their presence is legal and valid document. The execution of the Will, therefore, has not been proved, in accordance with law, at all. Both Courts below have not committed any illegality and irregularity in belying the stand of defendant No.1. 17. True it is that the exclusion of the legal heirs by the testatrix is not a valid ground to declare the Will as illegal, null and void, however, in the case in hand when it is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the propounder i.e. defendant No.1 alone was looking after and maintaining the testatrix during her life time and it is on account of the services he rendered to her, she bequeathed her entire property in his name by way of Will Ex.DW-1/A. The exclusion of four daughters, i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.2 by deceased Relo is not at all supported by the record. As a matter of fact, it is not the exclusion of the natural heirs alone, which weigh in the minds of both Courts below while holding the Will as illegal, null and void, but also the other circumstances, such as active participation of the propounder in the execution of the Will, association of interested persons as marginal witnesses to the will and at the apex the execution of Will initially not only in the name of defendant No.1, but also in the names of his real brothers namely Ami Chand, Kaur Chand and Gian Chand. 18. The reappraisal of the given facts and circumstances and also the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record leads to the only conclusion that the Courts below have not committed any illegality and irregularity in decreeing the suit against the appellant-defendant. The impugned judgment and decree is neither perverse nor vitiated on account of misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and rather deserves to be upheld. 19. In view of the above this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order so as to costs.