JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2013 rendered by the Additional District Judge (II), Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 42 of 2001. 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) has filed a suit for declaration that the “will” alleged to have been executed on 1.1.1998 by Narain Lal be declared null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining appellants-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) and proforma defendants from interfering, alienating and changing the nature of the suit land. According to the plaintiff, land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No.22/23, Khasra No. 546/361 measuring 0-00-96 hectares was owned and possessed by deceased Narain Lal. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 34/35, Khasra No. 25 measuring 0-04-02 hectares situated in village Matokhar was owned to the extent of ½ share by the deceased Narain Lal and ½ share by the proforma defendant Laskari Ram. The land comprised in Khewat Khatauni Nos. 68/71 to 73, kitas 32 measuring 3-35-54 hectares was owned and possessed by deceased Narain Lal to the extent of ½ share and land contained in Khewat Khatauni No. 69 min/74 to 76, kitas 16 measuring 1-75-24 hectares was owned and possessed by Narain Lal to the extent of ½ share. According to the plaintiff, she is legally wedded wife of Narain Lal, who was working in Bharat Swantantar Cloth Mill, Delhi and was drawing Rs.5000/-per month. According to her, Narain Lal has died on 8.6.1998. Narain Lal has never executed “will” dated 1.1.1998. The Sub-Registrar, Baldwara has refused to register the “will. The “will”, according to her, was false and fictitious document. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants have admitted that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of Narain Lal. According to them, plaintiff had filed a suit for maintenance against Narain Lal. He was dragged into litigation by the plaintiff. They have looked after Narain Lal. The “will” was duly registered. According to them, plaintiff has also been given share in the “will”. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 7.9.1999. He decreed the suit on 21.3.2001. Defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge (II), Mandi. The “will” was duly registered. According to them, plaintiff has also been given share in the “will”. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi on 7.9.1999. He decreed the suit on 21.3.2001. Defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge (II), Mandi. He dismissed the same on 31.7.2013. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that the “will” Ex.DW-1/A is not shrouded with suspicious circumstances. According to him, the “will” has been duly executed by late Sh. Narain Lal. It was duly registered. He lastly contended that the courts below have not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties. 6. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 8. The “will” Ex.DW-1/A is dated 1.1.1998. Narain Lal died on 8.6.1998. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was legally wedded wife of late Sh. Narain Lal. She has appeared as PW-1. According to PW-1, her husband came from Delhi about 5-6 months before his death. Her husband was ill and was not in sound disposing state of mind. She was not allowed to meet her husband by proforma defendant Laskari Ram. 9. PW-2 Panjku Ram has deposed that Narain Lal started living with his brother Laskari Ram after retirement. Plaintiff wanted to live with her husband, but she was not allowed to live with Narain Lal. Narain Lal was sick before his death. He was weak. He was not mentally fit. 10. According to PW-3 Shiv Ram, Narain Lal remained ill for about 10 months. He was not in sound disposing state of mind. He could not speak properly. His speech could not be understood. He was looked after by the plaintiff. 11. According to PW-4 Munshi Ram, he was called by the plaintiff to go to Panchayat. Pradhan of Panchayat was with him. 10-12 persons were there. Ex.DW-4/A was executed on 21.10.1997. Narain Lal has put his signature on Ex.PW-4/A. Ex.PW-4/A is the copy of compromise arrived at between Narain Lal and plaintiff. Narain Lal had agreed to maintain the plaintiff. 11. According to PW-4 Munshi Ram, he was called by the plaintiff to go to Panchayat. Pradhan of Panchayat was with him. 10-12 persons were there. Ex.DW-4/A was executed on 21.10.1997. Narain Lal has put his signature on Ex.PW-4/A. Ex.PW-4/A is the copy of compromise arrived at between Narain Lal and plaintiff. Narain Lal had agreed to maintain the plaintiff. He admitted the plaintiff to be his wife. He has never doubted the fidelity of his wife. 12. DW-1 Ramesh Chand has deposed that the “will” was executed by Narain Lal on 1.1.1998. He was in sound state of mind. He died on 8.6.1998. The plaintiff was living separately. They were looking after him. He has admitted that the plaintiff was living with Narain Lal at Delhi. Registrar. The “will” was registered by him. The “will” Ex.DW-1/A dated 1.1.1998 was scribed by DW-3 Hem Raj. DW-4 Kashmir Singh and DW-5 Jeet Ram are the marginal witnesses. 14. The “will” has been registered at Mandi. According to DW-1 Ramesh Chand, the distance between Baldwara and native place of plaintiff is 3 KMs. The distance between Tarandol and Sarkaghat is 20 KMs. Defendants have not explained why the “will” was not registered either at Baldwara or Sarkaghat. It has also come on record that Narain Lal was not in sound disposing mind. Ex.DW-4/A has been signed by Narain Lal in Hindi. However, he has signed the “will” in English. Narain Lal was identified by DW-6 Netar Singh. He could not explain how he knew Narain Lal. DW-4 Kashmir Singh has admitted that he was marginal witness in as many as 18 to 36 “will”. According to him, he has signed the “will” first and thereafter it was signed by the testator. The “will” was to be signed by the testator first and thereafter marginal witness had to sign the “will”. The presence of Narain Lal at the time of execution of “will” is doubtful. DW-4 Kashmir Singh is a stock witness. It has also come on record that Sub-Registrar, Baldwara has refused to sign the “will” and in these circumstances, the “will” was got registered at Mandi. DW-5 Jeet Ram has also not deposed that he put his signatures on the “will” in presence of testator Narain Lal. Defendans have failed to prove that the “will” dated 1.1.1998 was executed in accordance with law. DW-5 Jeet Ram has also not deposed that he put his signatures on the “will” in presence of testator Narain Lal. Defendans have failed to prove that the “will” dated 1.1.1998 was executed in accordance with law. Merely that the “will” is registered will not make it valid. A person will not be taken to a distance of 70 KMs, if he is suffering from dysentery when he could be taken to a nearby Government Dispensary. 15. Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of deceased Narain Lal. She being the legally wedded wife was entitled to inherit the property of her husband. Narain Lal died issueless. There is no proof whatsoever that defendants are even closely related to deceased Narain Lal. Plaintiff served Narain Lal at Delhi as per the statement of DW-1 Ramesh Chand. Both the courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties while coming to the conclusion that the “will” was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. Defendants were required to lead tangible evidence to remove the suspicion shrouding the “will”. 16. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi versus Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, (2006) 13 SCC 433 have held that it is for the propounder to remove suspicious circumstances by leading cogent evidence. Their Lordships have further held that it has also to be proved that testator had signed out of his free will having a sound disposition of mind and not a feeble and debilitated mind, understanding well the nature and effect thereof. Their Lordships have held as under: “32. Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the mode and manner in which the execution of an unprivileged Will is to be proved. Section 68 postulates the mode and manner in which proof of execution of document is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of Will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A Will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. It in unequivocal terms states that execution of Will must be proved at least by one attesting witness, if an attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. A Will is to prove what is loosely called as primary evidence, except where proof is permitted by leading secondary evidence. Unlike other documents, proof of execution of any other document under the Act would not be sufficient as in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution must be proved at least by one of the attesting witnesses. While making attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness, meaning thereby, he must intend to attest and extrinsic evidence on this point is receivable. 33. The burden of proof that the Will has been validlyexecuted 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 Shedage (2002) 2 SCC 85 and Sridevi & Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 784]. Subject to above, proof of a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document.” 17. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Venkatamuni versus C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh and others, (2006) 13 SCC 449 have held that while arriving at a finding as to whether the will was duly executed, the Court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the particular case. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. Akkayamma was not a highly educated lady. She received only primary education. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. Akkayamma was not a highly educated lady. She received only primary education. She could only put her signature. She was otherwise worldly. She was of miserly nature. She was originally a resident of Arconam. She knew the importance of registration of document as only a couple of days before her death, i.e., 29th September, 1968 she executed two deeds of settlement in favour of Respondents. We need not go into the question as to whether Plaintiffs-Respondents have sufficiently proved love and affection of Akkayamma for them, but, when a question comes up for consideration before a court in regard to grant of probate or Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed thereto, it is trite that all circumstances should be taken into consideration. It may be true, as has been opined by the Division Bench of the High Court, that proof of execution of the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act would be a prerequisite, but, to take the same in evidence it is also trite that while arriving at a finding as to whether the Will has duly been executed or not, the court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The Will in question was executed on 23.3.1968. It was an unregistered one. She was ordinarily not a resident of District of Chittoor. She used to visit the said place occasionally. She did not know intimately the scribe of the Will, namely, P.W.1-Shri V. Thyagarajan. He was a teacher. There was no reason for Akkayamma to walk to his residence and ask him to scribe the Will. If P.W.1 was not a professional scribe, there may not be any particular reason as to why Akkayamma had chosen him for the said job. In the event of suspicion in regard to the genuineness or otherwise, the Will must be proved to have been executed in accordance with law establishing that the same has been done in presence of at least two witnesses. Although, the court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in this behalf should be followed. The issue necessarily involves due appreciation of evidence. Although, the court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in this behalf should be followed. The issue necessarily involves due appreciation of evidence. We may notice that in the Will Akkayamma described herself as the father's wife of Shri C.D. Jaya Singh. What is meant by that is not known. While describing herself as the father's wife of C.D. Jaya Singh, it was stipulated that she had been having that status for the last 40 years. Our attention has been drawn to the findings of the learned District Judge by the learned counsel for Respondents that Akkayamma developed love and affection not only for Jai Singh, but also for his children through his first wife and particularly, the 3rd plaintiff who was his daughter. If that be the position, then why she had not bequeathed any property in her favour is difficult to understand. The learned District Judge enumerated nine circumstances which, according to him, were relevant for considering the proof of due execution and attestation of the Will in question, which are as under : 1. Akkayamma lived with Jai Singh, the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and husband of plaintiff No.4 at Arkonam in Tamilnadu while the plaintiffs lived at Chittoor in Andhra Pradesh till Jai Singh and she died. 2. There are indications to show that the plaintiffs were against Akkayamma to some extent when the second plaintiff filed a suit for partition on the ground that Jai Singh squandered the property after he developed contact with Akkayamma. 3. There was no special reason for love and affection between them except that Akkayamma had no children. There was no reason for Akkayamma in particular to choose first plaintiff to bequeath the schedule properties ignoring all other similarly placed persons like plaintiffs 2 and 3. 4. Piecemeal disposal of her properties at different stages and different types of documents Exs. A.1, B.24 and B.25, namely, settlement deed looks unnatural. 5. Akkayamma leaving registered documents Exs. B.24 and B.25 just three day prior to her death as against unregistered will six months prior to her death looks suspicious. 6. The will and settlement deeds almost read similar with same intentions consequently leading to a serious doubt. 7. A.1, B.24 and B.25, namely, settlement deed looks unnatural. 5. Akkayamma leaving registered documents Exs. B.24 and B.25 just three day prior to her death as against unregistered will six months prior to her death looks suspicious. 6. The will and settlement deeds almost read similar with same intentions consequently leading to a serious doubt. 7. The signature of Akkayamma on Ex.A.1 as Akkayamma Chevralu for the first time as against her usual signature on many documents including the settlement deeds Ex. B.24 and B.25 coming out just three days prior to her death with signature as Akkayamma speaks of something unnatural in the conduct of her. 8. The omission to mention the execution of Ex.A.1 will or the execution of such property in Exs. B.24 and B.25 is a strong circumstance leaving a serious suspicion on the conduct of Akkayamma. 9. The contents of Ex.A.1, which are conditional and contingent, appear to be unnatural." 14. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides: "63. Execution of unprivileged wills._ * * * (a) the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." Proof of a Will shall strictly be in terms of the abovementioned provisions. 15. It is, however, well settled that compliance of statutory requirements itself is not sufficient as would appear from the discussions hereinafter made. 23. Each case, however, must be determined in the fact situation obtaining therein. 18. 15. It is, however, well settled that compliance of statutory requirements itself is not sufficient as would appear from the discussions hereinafter made. 23. Each case, however, must be determined in the fact situation obtaining therein. 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Apoline D’ Souza versus John D’ Souza, (2007) 7 SCC 225 have held that section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the mode and manner in which execution of the will is to be proved. Their Lordships have further held that proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory requirement. Their Lordships have held as under: “13. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the mode and manner in which execution of the will is to be proved. Proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory requirement. Attestation is sought to be proved by PW-2 only. Both the daughters of the testatrix were nuns. No property, therefore, could be bequeathed in their favour. In fact one of them had expired long back. Relation of the testatrix with the respondent admittedly was very cordial. Appellant before us has not been able to prove that she had been staying with the testatrix since 1986 and only on that count she was made a beneficiary thereof. The will was full of suspicious circumstances. PW-2 categorically stated that the will was drafted before her coming to the residence of the testatrix and she had only proved her signature as a witness to the execution of the will but the document was a handwritten one. The original will is typed in Kannada, although the blanks were filled up with English letters. There is no evidence to show that the contents of the will were read over and explained to the testatrix. PW-2 was not known to her. Why was she called and who called her to attest the will is shrouded in mystery. Her evidence is not at all satisfactory in regard to the proper frame of mind of the testatrix. There were several cuttings and over writings also in the will. 20. The ratio of the said decision does not assist the appellant, as the mode and manner of proof of due execution of a will indisputably will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There were several cuttings and over writings also in the will. 20. The ratio of the said decision does not assist the appellant, as the mode and manner of proof of due execution of a will indisputably will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is for the propounder of the will to remove the suspicious circumstances, which has not been done in this case.” 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Babu Singh and others versus Ram Sahai alias Ram Singh, (2008) 14 SCC 754 have held that when genuineness of a will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing, if any. Their Lordships have further held that in terms of section 68 of the Evidence Act, although it is not necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove due execution of a will but that would not mean that an attested document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be examined at all. Their Lordships have further held that section 68 envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere attestation, as the words “at least” have been used therein. Their Lordships have further held that the will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of section 63 (1) (c) of the Succession Act, 1925. Their Lordships have further held that not only the execution of will be proved, but actual execution must also be attested by at least two witnesses and the attestation of will in question must be in conformity with the provisions of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. Their Lordships have further held that ‘attestation’ and ‘execution’ connote two different meanings. Their Lordships have held as under: “12. Indisputably a Will is to be attested by two witnesses in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Act). Indisputably, the requirement of Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act is required for to be complied with for proving a writ. Section 68 of the Act mandates proof by attesting witnesses of not merely of execution but also attestation by two witnesses. Indisputably, the requirement of Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act is required for to be complied with for proving a writ. Section 68 of the Act mandates proof by attesting witnesses of not merely of execution but also attestation by two witnesses. That is to say, not only the execution of Will must be proved but actually execution must be attested by at least two witnesses. Attestation must of execution of Will be in conformity with the provisions of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. 13. 'Attestation' and 'execution' connote two different meanings. Some documents do not require attestation. Some documents are required by law to be attested. 14. In terms of Section 68 of the Act, although it is not necessary to call more than one attesting witness to prove due execution of a Will but that would not mean that an attested document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be examined at all. Section 68 of the Act lays down the mode of proof. It envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere attestation as the words 'at least' have been used therein. When genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing if any. Thus, in addition to proving the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon. 15. The Court, while granting probate of the will, must take into consideration all relevant factors. It must be found that the will was product of a free will. The testator must have full knowledge and understanding as regards the contents thereof. For the said purpose, the background facts may also be taken note of. Where, however, a plea of undue influence was taken, the onus wherefor would be on the objector and not on the offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [JT (2007) 12 SC 248]}” 20. For the said purpose, the background facts may also be taken note of. Where, however, a plea of undue influence was taken, the onus wherefor would be on the objector and not on the offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [JT (2007) 12 SC 248]}” 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat versus Pragnaben Jamnadas kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365 have held that section 63 (c) of Succession Act, 1925 provides that attestation of will by two or more witness is mandatory. Their Lordships have further held that the will has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. The law in regard to proof of a valid Will is now well settled. It has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act reads as under: "Section 63.--Execution of unprivileged Wills --Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules :- (a) and (b) ... (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 12. Indisputably, the said provision is mandatory innature. A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. Indisputably, the said provision is mandatory innature. A Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that the propounder must prove execution and attestation of the Will by examining at least one of the attesting witnesses. What is meant by the word ‘attestation' is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act which reads as under : Section 3.--Interpretation-clause--In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,- XXX XXX XXX "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 20. Whether a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances or not is essentially a question of fact. We have noticed hereinbefore that there was a large number of suspicious circumstances in the instant case. We have also pointed out that suspicious circumstances appear on the face of the Will. Inferences of suspicious circumstances must be drawn having regard to the evidence of Ranjit Singh. Even the statutory requirements for proof of the Will have not been complied with. It is a trite law that execution of a Will must be held to have been proved not only when the statutory requirements for proving the Will are satisfied but the Will is also found to be ordinarily free from suspicious circumstances. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also." 21. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan versus Thekkayil Padmini and others, (2009) 1 SCC 354 have reiterated that onus to prove the will lies on the propounder. When such evidences are brought on record, the Court may take aid of the presumptive evidences also." 21. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan versus Thekkayil Padmini and others, (2009) 1 SCC 354 have reiterated that onus to prove the will lies on the propounder. Their Lordships have further held that even where plea of suspicious circumstances is not raised but circumstances give rise to doubt, the propounder must satisfy the conscience of the court by removing such doubt. Their Lordships have held as under: “18. It is only as against the judgment and findings that the items of property covered by Ext. B2 and B3 are available for division that the second appeal was preferred by the fifth defendant in the High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the properties covered by Ext. B1 and B4 namely items 1 to 3, 13 and 14 are no longer in dispute and the conclusions arrived at by the first appellate court that the said items are not available for division are final and binding on the parties. 19. What is in dispute and is open to further litigation are only the properties covered by Ext. B2 and B3 which were held by both the appellate courts to be available for division. Since we are concerned with the legality of execution of Deed of Will and Deed of Gift, Section 68 of the Act would have some relevance, which reads as follows:- "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. -If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied." Strong reliance was placed on this provision also by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision will make it crystal clear that so far as a Deed of Will is concerned, the position in law is no longer in doubt for the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder. The propounder has to prove the legality of the execution and genuineness of the said Will by proving absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will and also by proving the testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator. Once the same is proved, it could be said that the propounder has discharged the onus. 19. When there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of the Will, the onus is also on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court and only when such responsibility is discharged, the Court would accept the Will as genuine. Even where there are no such pleas, but circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. Suspicious circumstances arise due to several reasons such as with regard to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the conditions of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. The aforesaid view is taken by us in consonance with the decision of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee ( AIR 1964 SC 529 ) and Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba ( (1973) 3 SCC 291 ). 20. So far as Section 68 of the Act is concerned, itcategorically provides that a Will is required to be attested and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one of the attesting witnesses is called for the purpose of proving its execution provided such attesting witness is alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.” 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and others versus Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 have held that when natural heirs disinherited and propounder taking interest in the will even though the will was registered one, the propounder must prove due execution of will. Their Lordships have further held that the fact that the propounder took interest in execution of the will is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration for determination of due execution of the will. Their Lordships have further held that the propounder of will must prove: i) that the will was signed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind duly understanding the nature and effect of disposition and he put his signature on the document of his own free will, and ii) when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator’s mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder. 23. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi versus Yumnam Youkumar Singh and others, (2009) 4 SCC 780 while interpreting section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 have held that as under: “11. As per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of a Will (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the Will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses, and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will and each of them should sign the Will in presence of the testator. 12. The attestation of the Will in the manner state dabove is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of such a document. 13. Therefore, having regards to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.” 24. The Apex Court in S.R. Srinivasa and others versus S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 has held that where the execution of the “will” was shrouded by suspicious circumstances, mere registration of “will” by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion. The Apex Court has held as under: “57. Since there were suspicious circumstances, it was necessary for the defendants to explain the same. The registration of the Will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion. The first appellate court also notices that even in cases where the execution of the Will is admitted, at least one attesting witness of the Will has to be examined to receive the Will in evidence. DW2, who has been examined is the scribe of the Will, has given no plausible reasons as to why the Will was presented twice before the Sub Registrar for registration. Nor is it stated by this witness as to why the Will was not registered on the first occasion. 58. It is also held by the First Appellate Court that non-examination of the Sub Registrar creates suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Even the attesting witnesses to the Will have not been examined. Nor is it stated by this witness as to why the Will was not registered on the first occasion. 58. It is also held by the First Appellate Court that non-examination of the Sub Registrar creates suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Even the attesting witnesses to the Will have not been examined. There is no evidence whether the Will was read over by the Sub Registrar or anybody else before it was registered. It is not explained as to how the Will came into possession of defendant No.1. There is no evidence when he was put in proper custody of the Will. Considering the cumulative effect of all the circumstances, the First Appellate Court has held that execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside. 59. The High Court in its judgment seems to have misread the entire evidence. Aforesaid findings recorded by the First Appellate Court have been brushed aside by dubbing them as conjectural. We are unable to appreciate the course adopted by the High Court. It was so influenced by the alleged admission made by the plaintiffs in the second suit, it did not deem it appropriate to examine the material which formed the basis of the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court. It appears that the pleadings, documents and the evidence was not read by the High Court yet it concluded that the findings of the Appellate Court were conjectural. We are unable to endorse the view expressed by the High Court.” 25. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no question of law much less to say substantial questions of law in the present 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.