JUDGMENT Hon’ble Om Prakash-VII, J.—This First Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 22.5.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Execution Case No. 10 of 1993 [Pradeep Kumar (decree holder) v. State of U.P.] by which the unregistered Will deed dated 26.5.1990 executed by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar was found to be genuine and the objection raised by the appellants was rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows : 3. The appellants and respondent No. 1 are the real brothers and sisters. Smt. Savitri Devi was the mother of the appellants and the respondents. There were several movable and immovable properties in the Family. During the life time of Smt. Savitri Devi and her husband Srikishan, the partition Suit was filed by appellant No. 1 - Ashok Kumar against Srikishan, Smt. Savitri Devi and Pradeep Kumar. It also appears that the house properties owned by the parties at different places were the subject-matter of the partition Suit, which was decreed on 11.1.1978 on the basis of statement on oath made by the parties in the Suit proceeding. It also appears that agricultural land being khasra Nos. 29, 30 & 31 situated in village Gijhore, Pargana & Tehsil Dadri, District Ghaziabad, owned by Smt. Savitri Devi were not the subject-matter of the partition Suit No. 156 of 1976. 4. Agricultural land mentioned above was acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Athority (In Short ‘ NOIDA’) and Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award in favour of Smt. Savitri Devi, who feeling aggrieved with the award, preferred Reference before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, which was decided on 24.8.1992. Smt. Savitri Devi had died during pendency of the Reference No. 74 of 1992, Pradeep Kumar was substituted in place of Smt. Savitri Devi as legal heir in the Reference proceeding. NOIDA preferred First Appeal before this Court, which was also dismissed in non-prosecution. 5. Decree holder Pradeep Kumar (respondent No. 1) filed Execution Application No. 10 of 1993 before the Executing Court. During pendency of the Execution proceeding, appellants moved an application claiming themselves also the legal heirs alongwith respondent No. 1 to be substituted in the execution proceeding. NOIDA preferred First Appeal before this Court, which was also dismissed in non-prosecution. 5. Decree holder Pradeep Kumar (respondent No. 1) filed Execution Application No. 10 of 1993 before the Executing Court. During pendency of the Execution proceeding, appellants moved an application claiming themselves also the legal heirs alongwith respondent No. 1 to be substituted in the execution proceeding. An impleadment application had also been filed by the appellants in the First Appeal No. 585 of 1995 filed by the NOIDA and the application for impleadment has been allowed vide order dated 24.7.1997. The operative portion of the said order is as follows : “Pradeep Kumar claims that he is the sole legal representative of Smt. Savitri Devi because she has executed a Will in his favour. Admittedly the Will is unregistered and unprobated. The impleadment application filed by Ashok Kumar, Smt. Meena Sharma and Smt. Saroj Sharma is therefore allowed.” 6. Again an application had been moved seeking clarification regarding an apportionment of the amount between the legal heirs deposited by the Authority. 7. This Court vide order dated 28.11.1997 passed the following order : “4. By order dated 24th July, 1997, this Court simply allowed the impleadment application without saying anything about the apportionment of the amount amongst the several legal heirs of Smt. Savitri Devi. Therefore no clarification is required from this Court. 10th Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad should decide the matter after recording evidence produced by the parties regarding the genuineness and validity of the Will and the competence of Smt. Savitri Devi to execute the Will. 5. With these observations, the application for clarification is disposed of”. 8. In compliance of the order dated 28.11.1997 passed by this Court, the Court below recorded the evidence of the parties and vide impugned order dated 22.5.1998 found the Will executed by Smt. Savitri Devi in favour of respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar genuine and legal one. It also appears from the perusal of the record that before executing the said Will dated 26.5.1990, Smt. Savitri Devi had also executed the general power of attorney in favour of Pradeep Kumar on 16.10.1987 in regard to plot Nos. 29, 30 & 31. It is also clear from the record that after the death of Smt. Savitri Devi, a succession certificate has been obtained. 29, 30 & 31. It is also clear from the record that after the death of Smt. Savitri Devi, a succession certificate has been obtained. Later on, an application on behalf of the appellants, claiming themselves also the legal heirs of Smt. Savitri Devi was filed to revoke the succession certificate and as per records, the succession certificate was revoked. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed in execution proceeding regarding genuineness and validity of the said Will, present Appeal has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to allow the Appeal and to set-aside the impugned order declaring themselves also the legal heirs of late Smt. Savitri Devi and also for apportionment of the amount deposited in lieu of acquisition. 9. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 10. Heard Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri K.R. Sirohi, senior advocate appearing for the respondents. 11. Sri Chaudhary Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Court below has not taken into consideration that there was no occasion to execute a Will in favour of Pradeep Kumar. Smt. Savitri Devi had already executed a power of attorney in favour of Pradeep Kumar. The said Will deed is not, in fact, a Will deed, but is in form of settlement of the properties between the family members. It has been further argued that dealing with such type of matter, Court has to see the circumstances under which the said Will deed has been executed. Propounder of the deed has not examined himself before the Court to establish the circumstances, but the Court below illegally shifted the burden upon the appellants and observed that Ashok Kumar did not examine himself to establish the fact. Burden initially lies upon Pradeep Kumar. Therefore, there was no necessity to examine Ashok Kumar himself before the Court. Referring the typing made on the said Will deed, it has also been argued that gap between the last two lines on the first page is narrower than gap between the other lines of first page. At this stage, the attention of the Court was also drawn towards the signatures made at page 2 and argument has been advanced that there is no requirement for double signatures. At this stage, the attention of the Court was also drawn towards the signatures made at page 2 and argument has been advanced that there is no requirement for double signatures. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Will deed has been prepared without the consent of the testator and on a paper on which signature had already been obtained. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that Pradeep Kumar has concealed the fact and has got substituted his name in place of Smt. Savitri Devi leaving the other legal heirs. Reference at this stage was given of the petition moved for succession certificate and argued that in that application also Pradeep Kumar did not mention the name of all the legal heirs of late Smt. Savitri Devi and committed fraud before the Court. 12. Further submission is that propounder of the said Will deed has examined only the attesting witnesses, but not examined the typist, who has typed the said Will deed. Suspicion regarding execution of the said Will deed has not been explained by the propounder. If the Will had been executed in favour of Pradeep Kumar before the presentation of the substitution application in the Reference, then why this fact was not disclosed before the Court by the propounder. Sri Madan Gopal Sharma, who is also one of the attesting witness, had been the counsel of the respondent, therefore, his statement cannot be believed. Thus, referring the content of power of attorney and other documents, it has been argued that impugned order has been passed without framing proper point for determination/issues. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has argued that the said Will deed has been duly proved by the propounder. Attesting witnesses have stated before the Court on oath that Smt. Savitri Devi has executed and signed the Will in their presence. The contents mentioned in the power of attorney, as indicated above, itself make it clear the reason for executing the Will. The appellant Ashok Kumar had filed the partition Suit and the partition amongst the family members had already taken place. Smt. Savitri Devi was competent to execute the said Will deed as she was the recorded tenure holder in the revenue record as absolute owner. Appellant could not show any fact before the Court below contrary to this fact. The appellant Ashok Kumar had filed the partition Suit and the partition amongst the family members had already taken place. Smt. Savitri Devi was competent to execute the said Will deed as she was the recorded tenure holder in the revenue record as absolute owner. Appellant could not show any fact before the Court below contrary to this fact. Will deed is prepared by Advocate Madan Gopal Sharma, who had been the counsel of late Smt. Savitri Devi, therefore, he has also made signature as an attesting witness on the basis of his being a counsel. The execution of Will deed and attestation thereof cannot be doubted. Other witness has also proved the execution and attestation of the Will deed. Smt. Savitri Devi was living alongwith Pradeep Kumar as is clear from the power of attorney itself. The appellants have never claimed any right before the District Judge in the Reference proceeding having knowledge of the fact of execution of the Will deed. There was no necessity to examine the typist or the propounder in the matter. Circumstances, under which the Will deed has been executed, have been properly explained by the propounder mentioning all details. The fact that said Will shall be communicated after one year of the death of Smt. Savitri Devi, will not itself make the execution of the Will deed doubtful. Thus, refuting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, prayer has been made to dismiss the Appeal affirming the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following case laws : 1. In the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) By LRS v. A Ramalingam, 2011 Law Suit (SC) 180, the Apex Court held that it is mandatory for the appellate Court to independently assess the evidence of the parties and consider the relevant points which arise from adjudication and the bearing of the evidence on those points. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate Court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. 2. Being the final Court of fact, the first appellate Court must not record mere general expression of concurrence with the trial Court judgment rather it must give reasons for its decision on each point independently to that of the trial Court. Thus, the entire evidence must be considered and discussed in detail. 2. In the case of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat v. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, 2009 (2) AWC 1289 (SC), the Apex Court discussing the judgment passed in the case of Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs) (Nee Vas) v. Vera Marie Vas (Ms) and others, (1996) 9 SCC 324 , held that it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features and the Court must also satisfy its conscience before it passes an order on the basis of such Will deed. The same view has also been propounded by the Apex Court in the matter of H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 (Y 46 C 56) and held that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. 3. In the case of Joseph Antony Lazarus (D) By. L.Rs. v. AJ. Francis, 2006 (63) ALR 781 (Supreme Court), the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground that propounder has failed to explain the various suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will satisfactorily. 4. In the case of Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao and another, AIR 1999 SC 1441 , the Apex Court has held that where a party to the Suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. 5. In the case of Jaswant Kaur v. Amirt Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74 , the Apex Court held that if the execution of Will is shrouded in suspicion, then until and unless the party which sets up the Will, offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will, no conclusion in favour of genuineness regarding the Will can be taken. 6. 6. In the case of Ram Piari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742 , the Apex Court interfered in the finding of the Court below regarding finding of fact as to genuineness of Will. 7. In the matter of Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 SC 396 , the Apex Court has also propounded the same view as has been held in H. Venkatachala case (Supra) 8. In the case of Balbir Kaur and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2009 (75) ALR 829, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground that there is concurrent finding that the Will was not validly proved. 9. In the case of J. Venkataraman v. Mathibooshanam, 1995 Law Suit (Mad) 705, the Madras High Court has dismissed the testamentary suit on the ground that propounder has not proved the Will in accordance with law. 15. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire records. 16. It is the undisputed fact that Smt. Savitri Devi was the recorded tenure holder of the said agricultural land, which has been acquired by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. During course of Reference proceeding, no any impleadment application had been moved by the appellants for their impleadment. A general power of attorney regarding the plots in question had been executed earlier to the execution of the said Will deed in favour of the propounder Pradeep Kumar. Appellants and the respondent No. 1 are the sons and daughters of late Smt. Savitri Devi. A partition Suit during the life time of Srikishan and Smt. Savitri Devi, the father and mother of the appellants and the respondent No. 1 had been filed regarding the house owned by them and it also appears that a compromise decree had been passed. The amount in lieu of acquisition has been deposited before the Reference Court by the Authority. Present Appeal has been found maintainable by this Court. Earlier, a succession certificate had been issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar regarding the movable properties of Smt. Savitri Devi, which was revoked later on on the application of the appellants. Respondent No. 1 has been substituted as legal heir in the Reference proceeding before the District Judge in place of Smt. Savitri Devi. Earlier, a succession certificate had been issued in favour of the respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar regarding the movable properties of Smt. Savitri Devi, which was revoked later on on the application of the appellants. Respondent No. 1 has been substituted as legal heir in the Reference proceeding before the District Judge in place of Smt. Savitri Devi. Propounder - respondent No. 1 Pradeep Kumar has not examined himself before the Court in this proceeding. The Court below has recorded the statements of P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma and P.W.2. Gopi Nath. The appellants have examined before the Court in support of their case D.W.1 Smt. Saroj Sharma. No party has tried to obtain expert opinion regarding the authenticity of the signatures of Smt. Savitri Devi. P.W.1 Madan Gopal Sharma has been the Advocate of Smt. Savitri Devi from earlier before executing of the said Will deed. In the said Will deed, other family memebrs have also been given the movable/immovable property owned by Smt. Savitri Devi. It is not the case of the appellants nor respondent No. 1 that properties bequeathed through the said unregistered Will deed have not been possessed/owned by the beneficiaries. 17. Before discussing the submission raised by the learned counsel for the parties in consonance of the law laid down in the above cited cases, the relevant provisions regarding proof of the attestation and execution of the Will prescribed in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is quoted below. Section 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. 18. 18. The trial Court while passing the impugned order has observed as follows : “vkosndx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa dk vkyEc ysrs gq;s ;g rdZ fn;k] fd ;|fi olh;r ds izfriknd iznhi dqekj us olh;r dk fu"iknu fl) djus dk iz;kl vfHkys[kksa esa ,d ek= lkfo=h nsoh ds uke gh vafdr FkhA jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa fookfnr Hkwfe ij dsoy lkfo=h nsoh dk uke vafdr gksus ds dkj.k Mhxzhnkj dh vksj ls fn;k x;k rdZ gh vf/kd 'kfDr'kkyh gS] fd lkfo=h nsoh dks bl Hkwfe dh olh;r djus dk iwjs vf/kdkj izkIr FkkA ,d ek= ljkst 'kekZ Mh0MCyw0&1 ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij bl egRowi.kZ fcUnw ij ;g fu'd"kZ ugh fn;k tk ldrk fd lkfo=h nsoh dks ;g Hkwfe pwafd vkosndx.k ds firk dh ukuh ls feyh Fkh blfy;s bl Hkwfe dh olh;r og fu"ikfnr ugha dj ldrh FkhA vkosndx.k ds leFkZu esa u dksbZ vfHkys[kh; lk{; gS vkSj u dksbZ ,slh fof/k O;oLFkk gh gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij lkfo=h nsoh }kjk olh;r fu"ikfnr djus dh vf/kdkfjrk dks voS/kkfud dgk tk ldsA vr% esjh jk; esa vkosnd 1 vkifRrdrkZ dh vksj ls mBk;h x;h bl vkifRr esa Hkh dksbZ lkj ugha gSA bl izdkj i=koyh esa miyC/k leLr lk{; rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa o fof/k O;oLFkkvksa ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr eSa blh fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwW] fd lkfo=h nsoh }kjk fu"ikfnr olh;r dkxt la0 52 x izn'kZ&1 dk fu"iknu] lR;rk ,oa oS/krk HkayhHkkafr fl) ik;k tkrk gSA vkosnd 1 vkifRrdrkZx.k ;g fl) djus esa lQy ugha jgs gS fd olh;r dk fu"iknu lafnX/k gSa] vLokHkkfod gS] vkSj ;g clh;r lkfo=h nsoh dh e`R;q ds mijkUr dwV jfpr gSA ml ij eSaus ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ fn;k gS fd lkfo=h nsoh dks fookfnr Hkwfe dh olh;r fu"ikfnr djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk] D;ksafd jktLo vfHkys[k esa ,d ek= lkfo=h nsoh dk uke gh vafdr Fkk vkSj vkosnd 1 vkifRrdrkZx.k vU;Fkk fl) djus esa lQy ugh jgsA rnuqlkj ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa olh;r ls lEcfU/kr fookn fMxzhnkj iznhi dqekj ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA fu"iknu ckn dh dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vihy esa ikfjr vkns'kkuqlkj LFkfxr py jgh gSA fu.khZr Js.kh uks,Mk }kjk tek dh x;h /kujkf'k ds lEcU/k esa Hkqxrku dh dk;Zokgh iquZHkqxrku vkosnu i= izkIr gksus ij vyx ls dh tk;sxhA ” 19. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding competence of Smt. Savitri Devi to execute the said Will deed is concerned, it is clear from the evidence/record that she was the recorded tenure holder in the revenue records. Acquisition proceeding also started as an absolute owner. No question has ever been raised by the appellants regarding the title and ownership of Smt. Savitri Devi. Therefore, submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable in this matter. 20. Now it is to be seen whether an execution of the Will in the present case is surrounded by any suspicious circumstances. Does the Will appear to be on the whole an improbable, unnatural and unfair instrument. 21. The Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Singh (Supra) in paras 20 & 21 has held as under : “20. It has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that a will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the Court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the Court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also open to the Court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party. 21. In H. Venkatachala lyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, [1959] Supp. It would be also open to the Court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party. 21. In H. Venkatachala lyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, [1959] Supp. (1) SCR 426 : ( AIR 1959 SC 443 ) Gajendragarkar, J., as he then was, has observed that although the mode of proving a will did not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document, nonetheless it requires an element of solemnity in the decision on the question as to whether the document propounded is proved as the last will and testament of departed testator. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. These principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions of this Court in Rani Purnima Devi and another v. V. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and another, [1962] 3 SCR 195 : ( AIR 1962 SC 567 ) and Smt. Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another, [1982] 1 SCC 20 : ( AIR 1982 SC 133 ).” 22. Onus probandi is that those who take the benefit under a Will, have to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last Will of a free and capable testator. Propounder has also to remove all the reasonable doubts in execution of the Will. 23. Propounder of the Will namely Pradeep Kumar has examined before the Court P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma and P.W.2. Gopi Nath. Both have admitted that Smt. Savitri Devi has made her signature on the Will before them and thereafter they have signed on the Will. The said Will had been explained and read over by the writer/attesting witness P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma. What is required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the Will, have been fulfilled by the propounder. Therefore, observation recorded by the Court below regarding attestation and execution of the Will is not liable to be interfered. 24. The said Will had been explained and read over by the writer/attesting witness P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma. What is required under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the Will, have been fulfilled by the propounder. Therefore, observation recorded by the Court below regarding attestation and execution of the Will is not liable to be interfered. 24. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that propounder has not examined himself, therefore, suspicions circumstances surrounded to the Will have not been properly explained and the said Will has not been executed by Smt. Savitri Devi, is also not acceptable. Evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1 is satisfactory and conclusion of the trial Court is well founded and need not any interference. 25. In the present matter, there was no any necessity to examine the propounder because he has not participated in getting the instrument executed. The said Will has been prepared in absence of Pradeep Kumar and it came to his knowledge after one year. Respondent has examined P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma and P.W.2. Gopi Nath to discharge the burden lies upon him. So far as the details of all the properties owned by Smt. Savitri Devi given in the Will is concerned, the testator intention is also clear from this fact. What she wanted to give to each member are detailed in the Will. The power of attorney executed by the testator in favour of Pradeep Kumar also gives indication of the intention of the testator. Witnesses examined by the respondent cannot be termed as interested witnesses. There is also no evidence to establish that the Will had been executed by the testator under duress and coercion by the respondent herein or his family members who were residing with her at the time of her death. It is pertinent to mention that Will came out from the custody of P.W.1 Madan Gopal Sharma, who had been the counsel of the testator. The Will had been read over and explained to the testator. The Will has been duly proved by the attesting witnesses who are independent witnesses. It is also relevant to note that testator has distributed the properties owned by her amongst all the family members and there is no evidence that the beneficiaries of the Will are not enjoying the property. Testator has executed the Will acting of his own free will. It is also relevant to note that testator has distributed the properties owned by her amongst all the family members and there is no evidence that the beneficiaries of the Will are not enjoying the property. Testator has executed the Will acting of his own free will. Intention of the testator and occasion to execute the Will is also evident from the contents of the power of attorney executed by the testator in favour of the respondent No. 1. 26. The appellants have not been able to show any fact that respondent Pradeep Kumar had moved substitution application concealing the fact. If this is the factual situtation in the case, then we are of the view that merely on the basis of substitution of Pradeep Kumar as sole heir in the reference proceeding it cannot be presumed that Pradeep Kumar, concealing the fact of other legal heirs, had moved the substitution application. No adverse inference on that basis can be drawn against the propounder. The trial Court’s view in this regard is also not interfereable. 27. If the deed writer who is also one of the attesting witnesses was the lawyer of Smt. Savitri Devi or he was previously known to her, will also not create any doubt in execution of the case. Generally, people prepare a Will deed with the help of those persons who are most trustworthy to him/her. If P.W.1 Madan Gopal Sharma had been the advocate of Smt. Savitri Devi, then on this basis, he cannot be placed in the category of interested witness and execution and attestation of the Will deed cannot be doubted. View taken by the Court below do not require any interference. There is no requirement of the law that in each and every case, typist of the Will deed shall be examined invariably. If the two attesting witnesses have been examined, who have proved the Will deed, then the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is also not acceptable. 28. Whatever circumstances have been shown as suspicious circumstances by the appellants in execution of the Will, have been clarified by the propounder. The burden lies upon the propounder Pradeep Kumar, has been discharged properly. It is the case of the propounder that Smt. Savitri Devi was in a fit condition to execute the said Will deed. 28. Whatever circumstances have been shown as suspicious circumstances by the appellants in execution of the Will, have been clarified by the propounder. The burden lies upon the propounder Pradeep Kumar, has been discharged properly. It is the case of the propounder that Smt. Savitri Devi was in a fit condition to execute the said Will deed. Since the appellants have not adduced any evidence to show that Smt. Savitri Devi was not living with the propounder on the date of execution of the Will and she was not in a fit condition, therefore, view taken by the Court below in this respect is also not interferable. Appellants have also not produced any evidence before the Court to establish that after revocation of the succession certificate issued in the name of Pradeep Kumar, the same has been issued in their favour. Thus, on this score also, lower Court finding is not found illegal or incorrect. 29. Appellants have raised the argument that on the last two lines of the first page of the said Will deed, space between them is narrower than the spaces in other lines and there was no occasion to make a double signature on the last page. It might be the contention of the appellants to raise doubt regarding the Will, but no evidence has been adduced by the appellants before the Court below to establish that signatures made upon the said Will deed are not the signatures of the executant (testator) Smt. Savitri Devi. Merely narrow space in two lines and double signature on one page itself will not be sufficient to suspect the execution of the Will. It is pertinent to mention here that during the lifetime of Sri Krishan, the father of the appellants and respondent No. 1, a partition Suit regarding the houses has been filed, which has been decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties and the said agricultural land, which forms the subject-matter of the said Will deed and power of attorney was in the ownership of Smt. Savitri Devi. She had an absolute right. Therefore, execution of the said Will deed as has been discussed above, cannot be doubted on this score. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are also not acceptable and do not find any support with the facts of the case. She had an absolute right. Therefore, execution of the said Will deed as has been discussed above, cannot be doubted on this score. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are also not acceptable and do not find any support with the facts of the case. The lower Court view regarding competence, genuineness and execution of the Will is on the basis of evidence available on record. The propounder has discharged his burden and the statements of P.W.1. Madan Gopal Sharma and P.W.2. Gopi Nath are more trustworthy and believable than the statement of D.W.1 Smt. Saroj Sharma. The said suspicious circumstances shown by the appellants have properly been explained. Attestation and execution of the Will have also been duly proved by the propounder. 30. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, we are of the view that Appeal lacks merit and is not liable to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality and no ground for interference is made out. 31. The Appeal is dismissed. 32. Parties shall bear their own cost. —————