JUDGMENT RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh dated 1.1.2004, passed in Civil Appeal No. 9-D/XIII-02. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs), have instituted suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are successors and owners in possession of the land, as detailed in the plaint and as comprised in Jamabandi for the year 1992-93, situated at Mohal Bhota, Mauza Tangroti, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, on the basis of will dated 15.1.1997, executed by Gulabi Devi widow of Rijhu Ram and also for permanent injunction with consequential relief for injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from interfering or changing the nature of the suit land. Smt. Gulabi Devi was living with the plaintiffs and plaintiffs had been providing all necessities of life to her. Smt. Gulabi Devi died issueless. The plaintiff claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit land as owners and defendants have no right to interfere therein. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1. He denied the execution of will dated 15.1.1997 in favour of the plaintiffs by Smt. Gulabi Devi by alleging that Gulabi Devi never executed any will in favour of the plaintiffs and will dated 15.1.1997 was the outcome of fraud. Sh. Rijhu Ram, husband of Gulabi Devi was owner of the suit land. He executed will dated 21.12.1992 in favour of his wife with a proviso that in the event of death of Smt. Gulabi Devi during his life time, the property would be succeeded by defendant No. 1. Upon the death of Rijhu Ram, Gulabi Devi succeeded to the property and Smt. Gulabi Devi also executed a registered will dated 23.8.1993 Ext. DW-1/C in his favour for services rendered and out of love and affection. He was living with Gulabi Devi in her house. The last rites of Rijhu Ram and Gulabi Devi were performed by him. The plaintiffs have no relationship with Gulabi Devi whereas Gulabi Devi was the real sister of the mother-in-law of defendant No. 1. The possession was with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs for restraining them from causing any interference over the suit land. The plaintiffs have no relationship with Gulabi Devi whereas Gulabi Devi was the real sister of the mother-in-law of defendant No. 1. The possession was with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs for restraining them from causing any interference over the suit land. It was also claimed that Gulabi Devi even has gifted Kh. No. 881 out of the suit land vide Gift Deed dated 11.10.1996 in favour of defendant No. 1. 4. The replication-cum-written statement to the counter claim was filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs denied the execution of will dated 23.8.1993 in favour of defendant No. 1. The learned trial Court framed the issues on 7.7.1999 and 3.12.2001. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.12.2001. The counter claim of defendant No. 1 was decreed restraining the plaintiffs from interfering in any manner, whatsoever over the suit land. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2001. The learned Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dismissed the same on 1.1.2004. Hence, this regular second appeal. 5. The regular second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 21.9.2005: “1. Whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court erred in law in holding that the Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, invalid?” 6. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, on the basis of the substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the will Ext. PW-2/A dated 15.1.1997 was valid. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and records of the case carefully. 8. Sh. Rijhu Ram, husband of Gulabi Devi had executed will Ext. DW-1/A in favour of Gulabi Devi. Gulabi Devi executed will Ext.DW-1/C dated 23.8.1993 in favour of defendant No. 1. 9. DW-1 Sh. B.K. Sood, has proved will Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW- 1/C. These were scribed by his father-in-law. He had died. He also proved the extract from the register maintained by his father-in-law vide Ext. DW- 1/B and DW-1/D, respectively. 10. DW-2 Jai Ram, deposed that the will was scribed on the instructions of Rijhu Ram. He was one of the attesting witnesses of will Ext. DW-1/A and Ext. DW- 1/C. These were scribed by his father-in-law. He had died. He also proved the extract from the register maintained by his father-in-law vide Ext. DW- 1/B and DW-1/D, respectively. 10. DW-2 Jai Ram, deposed that the will was scribed on the instructions of Rijhu Ram. He was one of the attesting witnesses of will Ext. DW-1/A. Rijhu Ram after admitting the contents of the will to be true and correct put his thumb impression in his presence. He also proved endorsement Ext. DW-2/A. According to recitals in Ext. DW-1/A, Rijhu Ram bequeathed property in favour of his wife Gulabi Devi. There was also endorsement in Ext. DW-1/A that Desh Raj defendant was serving him and his wife. A stipulation was made that in case she pre-deceased him, in that eventuality, Desh Raj would inherit the entire property and after the death of his wife, Desh Raj would be the owner of the property. Ext. DW-1/A was registered. 11. Now, the Court will advert to will Ext. DW-1/C dated 23.8.1993 executed by Gulabi Devi in favour of Desh Raj. It is also registered will. DW- 3 Bhimsen is the attesting witness of the will Ext. DW-1/C. He deposed that the deed writer scribed the will at the instance of Gulabi Devi. She after admitting the contents of the will to be true and correct put her thumb impression in his presence and he alongwith the other witness attested the same in presence of Gulabi Devi. He also testified making of registration endorsement Ext. DW-1/E, which contained his signatures and Gulabi Devi also in his presence appended thumb impression before the Sub Registrar. 12. The defendant No. 1 has appeared as DW-6. He deposed that Rijhu Ram was husband of Gulabi Devi. He executed will Ext. DW-1/A. Gulabi Devi also executed will Ext. DW-1/C in his favour and after the demise of Smt. Gulabi Devi, he became exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit land. Gulabi Devi also executed gift mark ‘A.’ He also denied the suggestion that plaintiffs were rendering services to Gulabi Devi during her life time. DW-1 B.K. Sood, has testified that DW-1/C was scribed by his father-in-law. DW-4 Om Prakash deposed that both Rijhu and Gulabi Devi were served by defendant No. 1 during their life time. Their last rites were also performed by defendant No. 1. DW-1 B.K. Sood, has testified that DW-1/C was scribed by his father-in-law. DW-4 Om Prakash deposed that both Rijhu and Gulabi Devi were served by defendant No. 1 during their life time. Their last rites were also performed by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is in cultivating possession of the suit land and plaintiffs never became owner-in-possession of suit land. Defendant No. 1 has duly proved the execution of will Ext. DW- 1/C executed by Gulabi Devi in his favour. 13. The plaintiffs have relied upon will dated 15.1.1997 Ext. PW-2/A. PW-1 Sudershan, one of the plaintiffs deposed that Gulabi Devi was related to them. She was residing with the plaintiffs during her life time. She executed the will in their favour on 15.1.1997. After her death, they became owner-in-possession of the suit land. In his cross-examination, he admitted that defendant No. 1 Desh Raj was son-in-law of the real sister of Gulabi Devi. He also feigned ignorance as to how he was related to Rijhu Ram. He also admitted execution of gift deed in favour of defendant No. 1. PW-2 Fagnu Ram was one of the marginal witnesses of Ext. PW-2/A. According to him, the Will was scribed at the instance of Gulabi Devi in his presence on 15.1.1997. The contents of the same were read over to Smt. Gulabi Devi. She after admitting its contents to be true and correct, put her thumb impression and he also put his signatures. The suit land was being cultivated by the plaintiffs. PW-3 Chunnu Ram corroborated the statement of PW-2 Fagnu Ram by stating the manner in which Ext. PW-2/A was scribed by Harbans at the instance of Gulabi Devi. The contents of the will were read over and explained to her and she after admitting the same to be correct affixed her thumb impression over it. In his cross-examination he admitted that on the will Ext. PW-2/A, words Kuldeep were in different handwriting and were written by different person. 14. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to will Ext. PW-2/A wherein it is stated therein that it was her last will and wills, executed by her before and after would be treated as invalid and she has not executed any Will before this will Ext. PW-2/A. However, the fact of the matter is that Gulabi Devi had earlier executed registered will dated 23.8.1993 Ext. PW-2/A wherein it is stated therein that it was her last will and wills, executed by her before and after would be treated as invalid and she has not executed any Will before this will Ext. PW-2/A. However, the fact of the matter is that Gulabi Devi had earlier executed registered will dated 23.8.1993 Ext. DW-1/C in favour of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 has duly proved the execution of will Ext. DW-1/C. There would have been specific reference to will Ext. DW-1/C in Ext. PW-2/A. There is also no circumstance as to why Gulabi Devi was required to execute the second will. It has come on record that it was the defendant No. 1 who was serving Gulabi Devi. In Ext. DW-1/A, the will executed by Rijhu Ram in favour of Gulabi Devi, there is a specific reference that after his death, the property would go to Desh Raj. The testator has died within 7 days of the execution of the will Ext. PW-2/A. She was 90 years old at the time of execution of will Ext. PW-2/A. It is reiterated that defendant No. 1 was looking after Rijhu Ram and Gulabi Devi. The plaintiffs have failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will Ext. PW-2/A. The plaintiffs are not related to Gulabi Devi and on the other hand, defendant No. 1 is related to Gulabi Devi. According to the jamabandi Ext. D-4 for the year 1997-98 and Ext. D-5 Misal Hakiat bandobast Jadid, the property has been mutated in favour of defendant No. 1. He is in possession of the suit land. 15. The defendant No. 1 has duly proved the execution of will Ext. DW-1/A as well as DW-1/C. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of will Ext. PW-2/A. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.