JUDGMENT Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. (Oral) - Plaintiffs are in appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below in a suit for declaration wherein the claim of the plaintiffs was based on a Will dated 10.3.1995. Facts first. 2. One late Shri Harduari Lal son of Sh. Kaku Mal was a common ancestor. He had four sons namely Hakam Raj-defendant No.1, Wakil Chand-defendant No.2, Prem Chand-defendant No.8 and Gian Chand, who died as unmarried and issue less on 11.3.1995. Shri Harduari Lal was having five daughters namely Smt.Bachno Devi-defendant No.3, Smt. Tara Rani-defendant No.4, Smt. Leela Devi-defendant No.5, Smt.Satia Devidefendant No.6 and Smt.Joginder Kaur-defendant No.7. It was pleaded case of the plaintiffs-appellants that since late Shri Gian Chand son of Shri Harduari Lal was unmarried, issueless and his mother had also died before his death, he was living with the plaintiffs and defendant No.8-Prem Chand. He was being looked after by the plaintiffs and their father Prem Chand-defendant No.8. It was for this reason Shri Gian Chand executed the Will dated 10.3.1995 in favour of the plaintiffs before his death on 11.3.1995. On the basis of Will, plaintiffs claimed to have become the owners of the suit property. However, after the death of Shri Gian Chand, defendants No. 1 to 6 in connivance with revenue authorities got mutation no.3571 sanctioned in their favour regarding the property of deceased Gian Chand on 20.2.1996. This order was challenged but was upheld by the Collector vide order dated 27.8.1996, by the Commissioner vide order dated 16.2.1999 and by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 5.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved from these four orders passed by the different revenue authorities, plaintiffs-appellants filed the present suit for declaration. 3. Having been served in the suit, defendants No. 1 and 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement by taking numerous preliminary objections about the maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs and limitation. On merits, it was stated that plaintiff No.2- Ram Narain was minor, who was residing with his father-defendant No.8 Prem Chand. Gian Chand was having share in the property and he died unmarried as well as issueless. It was also stated that his mother Smt.Bhawani Devi died before the death of Gian Chand. The suit property was inherited by defendants No. 1 to 8 being legal heirs of deceased Gian Chand. Gian Chand was having share in the property and he died unmarried as well as issueless. It was also stated that his mother Smt.Bhawani Devi died before the death of Gian Chand. The suit property was inherited by defendants No. 1 to 8 being legal heirs of deceased Gian Chand. Since there was no other legal heir of Gian Chand, defendants No. 1 to 8 became owners in possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/8th share each. It was further pleaded case of the defendants that plaintiffs have no share in the suit property but they were owners in equal share in the property left behind by Sh.Gian Chand. It was also stated that Shri Gian Chand was not residing with the plaintiffs nor the plaintiffs were looking after him nor deceased Gian Chand executed any will in favour of the plaintiffs. The Will, if any, was a fabricated and forged document. Defendants No. 3, 5 and 6 filed separate written statement by taking preliminary objections that the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit by their own act and conduct. Supporting the averments taken by defendants No. 1 and 2, it was prayed that suit be dismissed with special costs. 4. On completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether deceased Gian Chand executed WILL dated 10.3.1995 in favour of plaintiff?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and condut to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief. 5. To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the Will and accordingly the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.3.2009. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their appeal before the learned first appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.3.2012. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned courts below have proceeded on erroneous approach, while passing their respective impugned judgments and decrees, which were not sustainable in law. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their appeal before the learned first appellate court, which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.3.2012. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned courts below have proceeded on erroneous approach, while passing their respective impugned judgments and decrees, which were not sustainable in law. He further submits that the plaintiffs have brought on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove their case. However, the learned courts below failed to appreciate overwhelming evidence available on record in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants because of which the impugned judgments have resulted in miscarriage of justice. He next contended that the Will dated 10.3.1995 was duly proved as Ex.P1 and the the learned courts below ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the basis of sufficient and convincing evidence produced by the plaintiffs-appellants. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees by allowing the present appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) because no question of law, much less substantial question of law thereof has been found involved in the present case. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. 8. The case of the appellants hinges on Will Ex.P1. It goes without saying that since the appellants were plaintiffs and they propounded the Will, onus was on them to prove by leading reliable, cogent and well convincing evidence that the Will in question was duly executed in accordance with law and was not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. However, a combined reading of both the judgments which are based on sound reasons will make it crystal clear that the plaintiffs-appellants have miserably failed to prove the Will in question. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the true facts as well as relevant principles of law applicable thereof because of which the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld. 9. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned courts below have rightly appreciated the true facts as well as relevant principles of law applicable thereof because of which the impugned judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld. 9. The Will in question was found surrounded by more than one suspicious circumstances. Firstly, the marginal witnesses of the Will seriously contradicted themselves about the date of death of the testator as well as execution of Will. Secondly, the Will in question was not got registered in spite of the fact that facility was very much available because house of deceased Gian Chand was situated near the office of Sub Registrar. Thirdly, no reason, whatsoever, was given to deprive the defendants from their right of natural succession. Fourthly, rendering of any service to the deceased by the plaintiffs, which was sought to be raised as the very basis of execution of Will in their favour, could not be proved by the plaintiffs-appellants. Fifthly, scribe as well as the attesting witnesses contradicted each other while deposing in the Court. Scribe stated that he saw the executant of the Will alive even after six months of the execution of the Will, whereas the attesting witnesses stated that the testator died within a few days or a few months after execution of the Will. However, admittedly he died very next day. Sixthly, plaintiffs did not take any steps to get the thumb impression of the testator compared with his admitted thumb impression. 10. There was another suspicious circumstance and it was that the testator died very next day, i.e. 11.3.1995, whereas he executed the alleged Will on 10.3.1995. Deceased Gian Chand used to sign the documents but the disputed Will was bearing his thumb impression. Even the Deed-writer did not produce his register in which he entered the Will, however, he admitted that deceased Gian Chand used to sign the documents. Under these circumstances, the learned courts below committed no error of law while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants and the impugned judgments deserve to be upheld for this reason also. 11. Further, Gurdial Singh-PW-3 deposed before the Court that deceased Gian Chand did not request him to witness the Will, rather he was called by Kirpal Singh, another attesting witness. 11. Further, Gurdial Singh-PW-3 deposed before the Court that deceased Gian Chand did not request him to witness the Will, rather he was called by Kirpal Singh, another attesting witness. Gurdial Singh-PW-3 also stated that he did not see deceased Gian Chand, whether he was feeling well or not nor deceased Gian Chand put his thumb impression on the alleged Will in his presence nor he signed in the presence of Gian Chand. He put his signatures on the Will at the instance of Kirpal Singh, another attesting witness of the Will. 12. It was also very strange and does not appeal to reason that the attesting witness neither saw the testator nor he witnessed the Will at the instance of testator. It was also not proved whether the alleged thumb impression on the Will was of left or right hand and whether it was actually that of testator Gian Chand because it has come in the evidence that Gian Chand used to put his signatures. Plaintiffs failed to produce any Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to get the alleged thumb impression of Gian Chand compared with his admitted thumb impression, thereby withholding the best evidence available to them. Thus, it can be safely held that the Will Ex. P1 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and plaintiffs-appellants failed to prove the same. 13. Relation between the parties to the litigation were not in dispute. Testator Gian Chand died unmarried and issueless on 11.3.1995. His mother pre-deceased him. Plaintiffs were claiming succession to the estate of Gian Chand son of Harduari Lal only on the basis of Will Ex. P1 dated 10.3.1995. On the contrary, defendants were claiming their respective shares in the suit property by way of succession as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the Will by leading reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence. However, the plaintiffs in the present case have miserably failed to do do. 14. Will is a document which becomes operative after the death of testator. Since plaintiffs/appellants were the propounder of the Will, it were they who were to prove the due execution of Will, in accordance with law dispelling the suspicious circumstances. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs failed to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. 14. Will is a document which becomes operative after the death of testator. Since plaintiffs/appellants were the propounder of the Will, it were they who were to prove the due execution of Will, in accordance with law dispelling the suspicious circumstances. However, in the present case, the plaintiffs failed to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. Date of death of testator Gian Chand was also an admitted fact on record, it being 11.3.1995 as per Ex.P13, whereas the Will was dated 10.3.1995. Hazari Nath, scribe of the Will, was examined as PW-2. His affidavit was Ex.PW2/A. He admitted in his cross-examination that he scribed numerous other documents on the same day, i.e. 10.3.1995 before scribing the Will in question. All these documents were scribed by him in the Court complex but the Will dated 10.3.1995 was scribed in the house of testator Gian Chand. 15. No explanation has come on record as to why this Will alone was scribed in the house of Gian Chand, which was situated near the office of Sub Registrar at Sub Division Phul. This witness further admitted in his cross-examination that since residence of Gian Chand was at a small distance from the office of Sub Registrar, he asked Gian Chand to get the Will registered in the office of Sub Registrar but Gian Chand stated that it will be got registered on some other day. 16. It has come on record that deceased Gian Chand had been contesting number of court cases and was a frequent visitor to the Court complex at Phul because of which there was no strong reason with him to call the Deed-Writer at his residence for scribing the Will. Although, registration of the Will was not necessary, yet non-registration thereof in the peculiar circumstances of the instant case including easy facility of registration, the office of Sub Registrar being near the house of testator Gian Chand, also creates doubt about very execution of the Will Ex. P1. Thus, the impugned judgments rendered by the learned courts below deserve to be upheld for this reason as well. 17. There was yet another serious contradiction in the evidence led by the plaintiffs-appellants. They tried to explain as to why testator Gian Chand put his thumb impression. The plea taken was that because his hand was trembling, he put his thumb impression instead of putting his signatures. 17. There was yet another serious contradiction in the evidence led by the plaintiffs-appellants. They tried to explain as to why testator Gian Chand put his thumb impression. The plea taken was that because his hand was trembling, he put his thumb impression instead of putting his signatures. However, this stand taken by the plaintiffs was not reliable for the reason available on record. Gian Chand and Prem Chand executed a power of attorney Ex. D2 in favour of their counsel Shri Sat Pal Garg, Advocate and this power of attorney was dated 23.2.1995. It was bearing the signatures of Gian Chand. Again, Exhibit D3 was the copy of plaint of a suit filed by Gian Chand and Prem Chand against their brothers Hakam Raj and Wakil Cahnd. This suit was filed on 23.2.1995. The plaint also bears the signatures of Gian Chand and Prem Chand. There was just a gap of 17 days between 23.2.1995 and 10.3.1995. Thus, the explanation to justify putting the thumb impression by the testator instead of signatures on the Will Exh. P1 does not inspire confidence and seems to be an after thought. 18. Further PW-3 Gurdial Singh revealed another important fact during his cross-examination. He admitted in his cross-examination that the plaintiffs, their father Prem Chand and sister of Prem Chand namely Smt. Joginder Kaur were present at the time of execution of the Will Ex. P1. However, this fact was denied by the plaintiffs during their cross-examination. Thus presence of the beneficiaries of the Will at the time and place of its execution creates another suspicion against the genuineness and authenticity of the Will Ex. P1. This conduct of the plaintiffs-appellants have gone totally unexplained. 19. It has also come on record that testator Gian Chand had been pursuing numerous litigations immediately before his death, against the defendants and other parties as well. As noticed above, another fact in this regard has come on record that Gian Chand and Prem Chand jointly filed a suit on 23.2.1995, just before 17 days of the death of Gian Chand. This suit was filed by Gian Chand and Prem Chand against defendants No. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction. Prem Chand was none else but father of the plaintiffs-appellants. One of his sister namely Smt. Joginder Kaur was residing with Gian Chand and he had no ill-will against Joginder Kaur or other married sisters. This suit was filed by Gian Chand and Prem Chand against defendants No. 1 and 2 for permanent injunction. Prem Chand was none else but father of the plaintiffs-appellants. One of his sister namely Smt. Joginder Kaur was residing with Gian Chand and he had no ill-will against Joginder Kaur or other married sisters. Still no reason, whatsoever, was given in the Will for excluding the natural legal heirs. In this view of the matter, it is held that the Will dated 10.3.1995 Ex. P1 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the findings recorded by the learned courts below were based on proper appreciation of evidence, which deserve to be upheld. 20. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned judgments so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. The learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts. Thus, there is no scope for interference at the hands of this Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC because no question of law, much less substantial question of law thereof, has been found involved in this appeal. 21. No other argument was raised. 22. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are upheld. 23. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs. ----------------