JUDGMENT 1. This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No. 54 A/2006, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2006 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Panna in Civil Suit No.99 A/2005. 2. Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of land situated in village Sawaiganj (Mouja Garhi Padaria) Tahsil and district Panna, bearing Araji No.20/25 area 0.348 hectare, Araji No.20/33 area 0.421 hectare and Araji No.98 area 1.343 hectare (new No.216 area 0.04 hectare, Araji No.224 area 0.05 hectare, Araji No.225 area 0.18 hectare, Araji No.239 area 0.11 hectare, Araji No.270 area 0.26 hectare and Araji No.464 area 1.32 hectare). On the contentions that, late Bhagwatdeen s/o Chandi Yadav was the owner of property and being issueless had brought up the plaintiff from his childhood and that by Will dated 6.1.1995 bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiff. That, Bhagwatdeen died on 9.1.1995. After his death the defendants who were the brothers of Bhagwatdeen though had received eight acres of land on partition, 30 years ago started interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the basis of order passed by the Revenue Authority directing for mutation over 1/3rd of the suit property. It was also the contention that since Bhagwatdeen was the sole owner of the suit property and same having been bequeathed in favour of plaintiff he be declared the absolute owner thereof. 3. Defendant No.1 contradicted the plaint allegations. It was stated that plaintiff was never adopted by late Bhagwatdeen and that Will dated 6.1.1995 was fabricated. It was further contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property which was being cultivated by the defendants. It was further averred that the defendants filed an application for partition of suit property before Additional Tahsildar, Devendra Nagar who by order dated 17.6.1993 partitioned the same amongst three brothers, namely, Bhagwatdeen (since deceased) and defendants No.1 and 2. That, the order dated 17.6.1993 was upheld in appeal by Sub Divisional Officer, Panna by his order dated 26.3.1994, which was further affirmed by Commissioner, Sagar by order dated 23.1.1996. 4. It was further contended during lifetime of Bhagwatdeen the defendants have been in possession and cultivating 1/3rd of the property in question and after his death they are in possession of the suit property. 4. It was further contended during lifetime of Bhagwatdeen the defendants have been in possession and cultivating 1/3rd of the property in question and after his death they are in possession of the suit property. The defendants have also denied the contentions that they received eight acres of land in partition. It was urged that the land bearing Araji No.20/48, 20/54 was not ancestral property but was a Government land on lease. The defendant also denied of taking loan from District Cooperative Development Bank. It was further contented that on the basis of fabricated Will dated 6.1.1995 plaintiff filed an application before Additional Tahsildar who by order dated 18.5.1995 directed for mutation. However, the said order has since been set aside in appeal by Tahsildar by order dated 25.3.1996. It was further contended that since Bhagwatdeen and defendants No.1 and 2 were real brothers and Bhagwatdeen having died issueless the suit property was reverted to the defendants. 5. Respective parties led their evidence. The trial Court on the basis of respective pleadings framed the following issues. 1- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe;k [kljk Ø-&216] 224] 239] 270 ,oa 464] dqy jdck 1960 gSa fLFkr xzke lokbZxat Lo- Hkxor~nhu dh Lo&vftZr Hkwfe;ka Fkh\ 2- D;k Lo- Hkxor~nhu us fnukad 6-1-1995 dks oknh ds i{k es fookfnr Hkwfe;ksa dh olh;rukek fu"ikfnr fd;k Fkk\ 3- D;k fookfnr Hkwfe;ka oknh dCtk gS\ 4- D;k oknh fookfnr Hkwfe;ksa ds LoRo ?kks"k.kk ,oa 'kk'or~ dh fMØh dk gd~nkj gS\ 5- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\ 6. The trial Court on the basis of material evidence on record held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that suit property was self acquired property of Bhagwatdeen and further having failed to prove the genuineness of Will dated 6.1.1995 non­suited the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 19th April 2006. The trial Court on the basis of revenue record and the order passed by Revenue Authorities, which remained uncontroverted held that the suit property was a joint family property and was not the property solely belonging to Bhagwatdeen. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court. No material evidence having been commended at to demolish the findings arrived at by both the Courts in respect of suit property being joint family property, no interference could be made at the second appellate stage in respect of finding of fact. 7. This finding has been affirmed by the appellate Court. No material evidence having been commended at to demolish the findings arrived at by both the Courts in respect of suit property being joint family property, no interference could be made at the second appellate stage in respect of finding of fact. 7. As regards Will dated 6.1.1995; the trial Court found that there was a contradiction and inconsistency in the evidence led by PW2 Prahlad Singh who is said to have been one of the attesting witness of the Will dated 6.1.1995 and Jagdish Singh PW4. Whereas, Prahlad Singh in his statement has said that the Will was typed at Panna by a Document Writer. Jagdish Singh on the other hand in paragraph 6 of his examination stated that the Will was hand­written. Besides this trial Court further found that thereafter no endorsement by the attesting witness that each of them has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to 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 the signature of other person. The execution of Will was doubted. The execution of Will was doubted. Learned trial Court in paragraph 38 observed:- 38- oknh dks izn'kZ ih&5 dh olh;r lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 67 ,oa 68 rFkk Hkkjrh; mÙkjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&63 ds vuq:i izekf.kr djuk Fkh] fdUrq oknh us iz-ih-&5 ds nLrkost dks bu micU/kksa ds vuqlkj izekf.kr ugha fd;kA Hkxor~nhu vf'kf{kr O;fDr Fkk ;g fufookfnr gS] vr% Hkxor~nhu ds vaxwBk yxk;k gS] bl rF; dks /kkjk&67 ,oa 68 lk{; foèkku ds lkFk lkFk blh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&44 ,oa 45 ds micU/kksa ds vuqlkj Hkh izekf.kr djuk FkkA oknh dks ;g lkfcr djuk Fkk fd izn'kZ ih&5 ij yxk;k x;k vaxwBs dk fu'kku Hkxor~nhu dk gS] vkSj ;g Hkh lkfcr djuk Fkk fd Hkxor~nhu us viuh LosPN;k ls iz-ih&5 dk olh;r ukek fu"ikfnr djk;k FkkA ;s nksuksa gh rF; oknh us izekf.kr ugha fd;s gSaA izn'kZ ih&5 ds nLrkost ij lkr lkf{k;ksa ds gLrk{kj gSa ftlesa ls dsoy txnh'k ds dFku oknh ds }kjk djk;s x;s gSa] 'ks"k fdlh Hkh lk{kh ds dFku oknh us ugha djk, gSa] vkSj u gh bldk dksbZ dkj.k oknh us vfHkys[k ij izLrqr fd;kA blls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd olh;r~ fof/kor~ fu"ikfnr ugha gqbZ rFkk olh;r ds leFkZu esa blds lk{kh cksyus gsrq rRij ugha gq,saA Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 stipulates : "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules :- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the 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. (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 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." section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates :­ "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." 8. What is required to be proved under section 63 has been delineated by the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal and others [ (2010) 14 SCC 266 ], wherein paragraph 17 it is held : "17. A careful analysis of the provisions of section 63 would show that proof of execution of a Will would require the following aspects to be proved : (1) That the Testator has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or the Will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the Testator. A careful analysis of the provisions of section 63 would show that proof of execution of a Will would require the following aspects to be proved : (1) That the Testator has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or the Will has been signed by some other person in the presence and under the direction of the Testator. (2) The signature or mark of the Testator or the signature of the persons signing for him is so placed has to appear that the same was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (3) That the Will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or has been seen by some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from Testator a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person. (4) That each of the witnesses has singed the Will in the presence of the Testator. 9. In the case at hand PW2 Prahlad Singh does not state that the Will has been attested by two or more witnesses each one of whom has signed or affixed his mark to the Will or has been seen by some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the Testator or has received from Testator a personal acknowledgement of the signature or mark or the signature of each other person. 10. The only thing which he stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that certain persons namely Komal Singh, Trilok Singh, Ramadhar, Aman Singh, Chandan Singh and Minilal were present at the time when the Will was being executed. There is no mention that witnesses have seen the testator signing the Will. 11. These findings arrived at by the trial Court have further been affirmed by the Trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dated 26th February 2007 and though it is contended by learned counsel for appellant that both the Courts have patently erred in non­suiting the plaintiff; however, has failed to demolish the findings as regards to the finding that execution of Will being not genuine no interference is caused with the concurrent finding of fact. 12. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.