JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri N.N. Jaiswal, for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted Sri Mohd. Sadab, for the objector. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 16.06.1990 and District Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 03.03.1992, passed in title proceeding, under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to land recorded in basic consolidation year khatas-56 and 196 of village Atawa Muthia and khata-59 and 236 of village Umrari, pargana Sandila, district Hardoi. In basic consolidation year khatas 56 of Atwa Muthia and 59 of Umrari were recorded in the names of Jagdev and Hori Lal sons of Nand Lal, while khatas 196 of Atwa Muthia and 236 of Umrari were recorded in the name of Jagdev and Hori Lal sons of Nand Lal along with other co-sharers, with whom there is no dispute. The dispute between the parties relates to inheritance of Jagdev. The petitioner is claiming his right on the basis of an unregistered will dated 06.08.1984, allegedly executed by Jagdeo in his favour. Ram Kumar (now represented by respondent-3) was son of Jagdev and claimed to be his heir under Section 171 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The dispute was noted in CH Form-4 that Jagdev was dead and Ram Kumar was his only son and heir of the land in dispute. Ram Adhar (the petitioner) filed separate objections under Section 9 of the Act, for recording his name over aforementioned khatas, on the basis of unregistered will dated 06.08.1984, allegedly executed by Jagdev in his favour. Consolidation Officer consolidated all the cases and tired together. The petitioner filed original will dated 06.08.1984 and an affidavit allegedly sworn by Smt. Sushila wife of Ram Kumar and examined Ram Adhar, Gokaran Prasad (attesting witness of the will) and Lalji (scribe of the will). Ram Kumar filed copy of Pariwar Register and examined Ram Kumar and Bhikham as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 16.02.1990 held that all witnesses of Ram Adhar admitted that Jagdev and Hori Lal had separate houses and were living separately. Smt. Sushila was looking after Jagdev and Ram Kumar was living separately from his father and wife. Ram Kumar filed copy of Pariwar Register and examined Ram Kumar and Bhikham as witnesses. Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 16.02.1990 held that all witnesses of Ram Adhar admitted that Jagdev and Hori Lal had separate houses and were living separately. Smt. Sushila was looking after Jagdev and Ram Kumar was living separately from his father and wife. Ram Adhar has stated that on the date of execution of will, Jagdev was seriously ill and was not able to catch pen as such affixed his thumb marks on the will. Gokaran Prasad and Lalji have stated that will was executed in morning up to 8.00 a.m. and thereafter they returned to their house from train but from certificate issued by Station Master Benaganj, it was proved that on that day, SSB train was departed from station Benaganj at 7.48 a.m. The witnesses have stated that the will was executed at the house of Jagdev and although various villagers were present at that time but they did not agree to sign the will as witness. Witness Gokaran Prasad was uncle (phupha) of Ram Adhar and Lalji was cousin (phupha's brother's son) and thus highly interested witnesses. Alleged affidavit of Smt. Shushila was not admissible in evidence. For these reasons, he held that due execution of will was not proved. On the other hand Ram Kumar was admittedly son of Jagdev. On these findings, he dismissed the objections of the petitioner and directed for recording the name Ram Kumar over the khatas in dispute as an heir. 4. The petitioner filed two appeals (registered as Appeal Nos. 685 and 685) from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard by Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 31.07.1990, held that Gokaran Prasad and Lalji, who were near relations of the parties, had stated that Ram Kumar had send his wife to her maternal house and was living with another lady due to which Jagdev executed will in favour of his brother's son to save ancestral property. Due execution of the will was proved from the statements of attesting witness and there is no reason to disbelieve him. On these findings, he allowed the appeals, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.02.1990 and directed for recording the name of the petitioner as an heir of Jagdev. 5. Ram Kumar filed three revisions (registered as Revision Nos. On these findings, he allowed the appeals, set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.02.1990 and directed for recording the name of the petitioner as an heir of Jagdev. 5. Ram Kumar filed three revisions (registered as Revision Nos. 484/608, 485/609 and 486/610) from order dated 31.07.1990. The revisions were consolidated and heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, along with Revision No. 512/636, who by his order dated 03.03.1992, held that the will was suspicious document in as much as the only son was deprived from inheritance by Jagdev. Although it is admitted that several villagers were present at the time of execution of will but none of them had agreed to sign the will as witness. No evidence has been adduce to prove that Ram Kumar had a kept. On these findings he allowed the revision and set aside order of appellate authority. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that due execution of the will was proved beyond all reasonable doubts by attesting witness Gokaran Prasad, according to provisions of Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872. Gokaran Prasad was a common relation of the parties and had no motive to give false statement for the petitioner. Ram Kumar developed bad habit and began to live with another lady separately from his father and wife. In order to save ancestral property, Jagdev executed will and excluded him from inheritance. Smt. Sushila wife of Ram Kumar herself admitted execution of the will in her affidavit. Not signing the will by villagers as attesting witness is not a suspicious circumstance. Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, (1995) 4 SCC 459 and Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, AIR 2004 SC 1772 , held that will is always executed to alter normal mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heir. If a natural heir has been given lessor share or excluded from succession, then by itself without any thing more cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and is liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. If a natural heir has been given lessor share or excluded from succession, then by itself without any thing more cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and is liable to be set aside. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Mode of execution of the will has been prescribed under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is quoted below "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 marks 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. 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 acknowledgment 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." 8. Execution of the will is required to be proved, at least by one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is quoted below "68. Execution of the will is required to be proved, at least by one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is quoted below "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." 9. The word "attestation" has been defined under Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as follows "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;" 10. A Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 , after reviewing earlier judgments held that as per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 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 the presence of the testator." The attestation of the will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attesting 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, its execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in the Section 68 of 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. 11. Apart from proving due execution of the will, if a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the propounder is required to remove suspicious circumstances. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimbajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 held that there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily 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 the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicions circumstances. In such cases 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. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. 12. Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimbajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narain Deb, AIR 1962 SC 567 , Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 (Constitution Bench), Ram Pyari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742 , Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 , SR Sriniwas v. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 , Balathandayuthan v. Ezhilarasan (2010) 5 SCC 770 , M.B. Ramesh v. K.M. Veeraji Urs, (2013) 7 SCC 490 and Jagdish Chandra Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini, (2015) 8 SCC 615 held that suspicious circumstances are genuineness of signature of testator on the will, condition of testator's mind at the time of will, propounder took prominent part in execution of will, will being unnatural, improbable and unfair and might cut of wholly or in part near relations. However, Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, (1995) 4 SCC 459 and Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, AIR 2004 SC 1772 , took a contrary view that will is always executed to alter normal mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heir. If a natural heir has been given lessor share or excluded from succession, then by itself without any thing more cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance. 13. In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao, (2006) 13 SCC 433 , held that there are several circumstances which would have been held to be described by this Court as suspicious circumstances: "(i) when a doubt is created in regard to the condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the will; (ii) when the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances; (iii) where propounder himself takes prominent part in the execution of will which confers on him substantial benefit. 14. In the will, it has been mentioned that Ram Adhar was taking care of Jagdev and was serving him during last time. However, from the evidence of Ram Kumar it was proved that Jagdev and Hori Lal had separate houses and living separately. In the house of Jagdev, Ram Kumar and Smt. Sushila were also living. Thus the case, set up by the petitioner that Ram Kumar had relations with another lady and sent his wife Smt. Sushila to her maternal house, was disproved. Then some of the witnesses changed the version and stated that Smt. Sushila was serving Jagdev and Ram Kumar was living separately along with his kept, from his father and brother. Alleged affidavit of Smt. Sushila was also procured, admitting execution of will. Although in regular proceeding, an affidavit cannot be treated as an evidence as held by Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 58 . In such circumstances, Consolidation Officer found that reason for depriving only son Ram Kumar, from inheritance by Jagdev was not proved. 15. Date and time of execution was also disproved by respondent-3 by filing certificate issued by Station Master of railways. In such circumstances, Consolidation Officer found that reason for depriving only son Ram Kumar, from inheritance by Jagdev was not proved. 15. Date and time of execution was also disproved by respondent-3 by filing certificate issued by Station Master of railways. The petitioner has stated that Ram Adhar was seriously ill and was not in position to catch the pen as such he had affixed his thumb impressions on the will. If this was physical condition of Jagdev at the time of execution of will, then burden was upon the petitioner to prove that he was mentally fit and sound and executed the will after under standing its contents. Attesting witness and scribe have deliberately concealed this material fact. In the light of these facts, the fact that several villagers were present at the time of execution of will but did not agree to sign as witness, has also become relevant and created a serious doubt about due execution of the will. After considering entire evidence on record, Consolidation Officer recorded finding that due execution of the will was not proved. This finding do not suffer from any illegality. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no illegality in the judgments of respondents-1 and 2. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.