JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J.: By way of the present appeal, the appellant/defendant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 140/2003, 21/2005, dated 09.05.2006, vide which, learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. 3, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 144/99, dated 31.07.2003. 2. This appeal was admitted on 17.05.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether an identifier can be attesting witness of the will Ex. DW2/A? 2. Whether there is totally misreading of the evidence of the appellant by both the ld. Courts below especially DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW6, which has caused great miscarriage of justice to the appellant?” 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction on the ground that late Chhitru was owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share and he died on 18.01.1999 when he was more than 95 years of age. The plaintiffs, defendants No. 2 and proforma defendant No. 4, were the daughters of late Chhitru, whereas defendant No. 3 was his widow, who had no male issue. The entire land of late Chhitru was being used, looked after and cultivated by all his daughters and widow collectively before the death of late Chhitru. They were still possessing it jointly at the time of filing of the suit. Accordingly, they were entitled to inherit the same in equal shares being first class legal heirs of late Chhitru. However, defendant No.1, husband of defendant No. 2, started proclaiming after the death of Chhitru that deceased Chhitru had executed a Will in his favour dated 01.01.1999, vide which, the entire property of late Chhitru had been bequeathed in his favour. As per the plaintiffs, late Chhitru never expected any Will in favour of defendant No. 1 and alleged document was a forged document and even if it stood proved that the thumb mark appended on the Will was of late Chhitru, even then the same was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence exercised by defendant No. 1 on late Chhitru. Accordingly, on these basis, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the alleged Will dated 01.01.1999 was null and void having been procured by fraud, misrepresentation by practicing undue influence and further, the plaintiffs be declared owners of the suit property alongwith other heirs of deceased Chhitru. 4. There are two written statements on record one filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 3, which is verified by defendant No. 1 and another written statement independently filed by defendant No. 3, which is duly verified by defendant No. 3. 5. In the written statement, which has been filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 3, it has been stated therein that after the death of Chhitru, defendant No. 1 was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of registered Will dated 01.01.1999, which was executed by deceased Chhitru in favour of defendant No. 1 with his own free will and volition in a sound disposing state of mind. It was further mentioned in the written statement that the registered Will was validly executed by Chhitru in favour of defendant No. 1 in presence of his wife Smt. Kala Devi, defendant No. 3 and that the Will was valid and genuine one which was executed by the testator with his own free will and volition in lieu of services rendered to him by defendant No. 1 and also by defendant No. 2. It was further mentioned in the written statement that deceased Chhitru had himself come to the office of Sub Registrar, Mandi and executed and got the Will registered i.e. Will No. 1 dated 01.01.1999 in favour of defendant No. 1. It was further mentioned that testator had come to the petition writer in Mandi and got the Will scribed and thereafter, he put his thumb impression and the witnesses signed the same in presence of each other and Chhitru and witnesses thereafter went to the office of Sub Registrar, Mandi. The scribe had read over the contents of the Will to the testator, who after hearing and admitting the same as correct, had put his thumb impression thereon. Thus, it was stated that the Will in question was a genuine and valid Will. 6. The scribe had read over the contents of the Will to the testator, who after hearing and admitting the same as correct, had put his thumb impression thereon. Thus, it was stated that the Will in question was a genuine and valid Will. 6. Defendant No. 3 in her written statement admitted the case of the plaintiffs and stated therein that Chhitru was an extremely old man and he was illiterate and at the time of his death, he was not at all mentally sound. It was further stated in the written statement that the replying defendant (defendant No. 3), who was old illiterate lady. On 01.01.1999, defendants No. 1 and 2 told her and Chhitrru that they would get Chhitru checked up in Zonal Hospital, Mandi, as he was quite ill and on this pretext, they brought him to Mandi and thereafter, defendants No. 1 and 2 asked the replying defendant to transfer the property of late Chhitru in four equal shares in favour of his daughters, which was consented to by the replying defendant. She has further stated that Chhitru was not at all in understanding position and thereafter, papers in this regard were prepared over which her signatures as well as the signatures of Chhitru were obtained on the pretext that the property shall be divided amongst all the four daughters. However, later on defendant No. 3 came to know that defendant No.1 had got transferred the property of Chhitru in his name which document according to defendant No. 3 had been procured by defendant No. 1 fraudulently and accordingly, the said document was liable to be declared wrong, null and void. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Shri Chhitru has executed a valid Will dated 1-1-1999 in favour of the defendant No. 1? … OPD 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? … OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and deeds? … OPD 4. Whether the alleged Will is a forged document? … OPP 5. If issue No. 4 is not proved, whether the alleged Will is result of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud? … OPP 6. Relief. 8. … OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and deeds? … OPD 4. Whether the alleged Will is a forged document? … OPP 5. If issue No. 4 is not proved, whether the alleged Will is result of undue influence, misrepresentation and fraud? … OPP 6. Relief. 8. On the basis of material placed on record by the respective parties, the said issues were answered as under:- Issue No. 1 No. Issue No. 2 No. Issue No. 3 No. Issue No. 4 Yes. Issue No. 5 Yes. Relief: Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as per operative portion of the judgment with no order as to cost. 9. The learned trial Court concluded that the Will dated 01.01.1999 was null and void being forged and procured by fraud, misrepresentation of facts and by practicing undue influence and accordingly, it decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. While arriving at the said decision, on the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Court concluded that it stood apparent from the statement of Lata Devi DW-6 that her father had got Will scribed and thereafter, they went to the office of Tehsildar where their statements were recorded and the Will was registered. The learned trial Court further held that DW-6 was not able to prove due execution of Will by stating that the Will was got written by the testator before document script writer and the testator thereafter signed the said Will in front of two witnesses including DW-6. The learned trial Court also held that it was not stated by DW-6 who was also the attesting witness that the witnesses signed the said Will after the same was signed by the testator. On these basis, learned trial Court concluded that due execution of the Will by the testator remained doubtful especially keeping in view the fact that DW-6 was the wife of the beneficiary of the Will i.e. defendant No. 1 and herself was defendant No.2 in the suit. The learned trial Court also held that it was clear from the statements of the witnesses on record that the deceased Chhitru was an old and illiterate man. There were cuttings on Ext.DW2/A and no separate note qua cutting and addition was given therein and same had not credibly explained by the defendants. The learned trial Court also held that it was clear from the statements of the witnesses on record that the deceased Chhitru was an old and illiterate man. There were cuttings on Ext.DW2/A and no separate note qua cutting and addition was given therein and same had not credibly explained by the defendants. It further held that in the said Will on the thumb impression of second witness namely Kala Devi it was not recorded that whose thumb impression it was. Accordingly, it was held by the learned trial Court that it was evident that the Will is forged and result of undue influence and misrepresentation and forgery. 10. Feeling aggrieved by judgment passed the learned trial Court, the defendant therein filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 09.05.2006. The learned Appellate Court held that the Will propounded by defendant No. 1 Ext. DW2/A had been scribed by Bhagi Rath and M.P. Kaushal was an identifier, whereas Lata Devi and Kala Devi were shown to be the two attesting witnesses. It further held that the Will dated 01.01.1999 was stated to have been presented for registration on the same day by the testator and was registered in the office of Sub registrar, Sadar Mandi on the identification of M.P. Kaushal. Learned Appellate Court also held that the perusal of the statement of defendant No. 1 Narottam Singh (DW-5) demonstrated that he was not the attesting witness to the execution of the Will. This witness simply stated that the deceased Chhitru executed the Will in his favour as he used to look after the deceased. Learned Appellate Court further held that the said witness had not mentioned in his statement that the Will Ext. DW2/A was executed by the deceased in the mode and manner as is provided under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Said witness had not uttered a single word that the Will bears the signature/thumb impression of deceased Chhitru which was affixed by the deceased in the presence of two attesting witnesses and that two attesting witnesses had signed/thumb marked the Will in the presence of the testator. The learned Appellate Court further held that the Will was attested by two attesting witnesses Lata Devi and Kala Devi. Kala Devi was not examined by the defendants to prove the execution of the Will. The learned Appellate Court further held that the Will was attested by two attesting witnesses Lata Devi and Kala Devi. Kala Devi was not examined by the defendants to prove the execution of the Will. On the other hand, in her written statement, Kala Devi had admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and had also pleaded that the Will was a result of fraud practiced upon her and deceased Chhitru by defendant No. 1. The learned Appellate Court further held that even DW-6 Lata Devi had not stated that the Will was duly executed as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The learned Appellate Court also held that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant that the execution of the Will in accordance with law stood proved from the statement of DW-2 Pratap Singh, Sub Registrar, DW-4 M.P. Kaushal, identifier, and DW-3 Bhagi Rath Sharma, was also without merit. The learned Appellate Court held that the statement of DW-4 cannot be relied upon as the said witness had not appended his signatures upon the Will in order to attest the same but he simply signed the same as an identifier. It further held that a perusal of the statements of the scribe of the Will DW-3 and DW-6 also made it abundantly clear that none of these witnesses stated that DW-4 was present at the time of writing of the Will and further that the deceased had affixed his thumb impression upon the Will in the presence of DW-4 and the attesting witnesses had signed/thumb marked the Will in the presence of DW-4. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court held that the statement of DW-4 to the effect that the entire proceeding regarding the execution of the Will was conducted in his presence was not corroborated by the scribe DW-3 as well as by DW-6. The learned Appellate Court also held that the said witnesses cannot be treated as the attesting witnesses keeping in view the fact that he has signed the Will as an identifier and not as an attesting witness. The learned Appellate Court thus also held that the defendants had failed to prove the valid execution of the Will Ext. The learned Appellate Court also held that the said witnesses cannot be treated as the attesting witnesses keeping in view the fact that he has signed the Will as an identifier and not as an attesting witness. The learned Appellate Court thus also held that the defendants had failed to prove the valid execution of the Will Ext. DW2/A by Chhitru by leading convincing and satisfactory evidence and that the learned trial Court had rightly concluded that the Will in issue had not been validly executed and the same was null and void. However, the findings returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that the impugned Will was a forged document, were set aside on the ground that there was no evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs to prove that the Will in issue was a forged document or the same was a result of misrepresentation and fraud. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Court reversed the findings on Issues No. 4 and 5 but it still held that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be decreed as the defendants had failed to prove that deceased Chhitru had executed valid Will in favour of defendant No. 1 on 01.01.1999. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. 13. The first substantial question of law on which the present appeal was admitted is whether an identifier can be attesting witness of the will Ex. DW2/A. 14. When I come to the facts of the present case, it is apparent from the perusal of Ext. DW2/A that two attesting witnesses to the execution of the said alleged Will are (a) Lata Devi i.e. defendant No. 2 and (b) Kala Devi i.e. defendant No. 3. M.P. Kaushal has signed the said Will as an identifier. He has not signed the said Will as an attesting witness. 15. DW2/A that two attesting witnesses to the execution of the said alleged Will are (a) Lata Devi i.e. defendant No. 2 and (b) Kala Devi i.e. defendant No. 3. M.P. Kaushal has signed the said Will as an identifier. He has not signed the said Will as an attesting witness. 15. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act clearly laws down that every testator shall execute his Will according to the follwing 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. (c) The will shall he 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." 16. In the present case, the two attesting witnesses admittedly are Lata Devi and Kala Devi. Whereas, Lata Devi DW-6 has supported the case of the defendants with regard to the execution of the Will by the testator. The second attesting witness, namely, Kala Devi, who has been impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit, has not entered the witness box to support the execution of the Will and on the contrary, in her written statement, she has stated that her as well as testator signatures were procured on the alleged Will by defendant No. 1 by way of misrepresentation. It is not even the case of defendants No. 1 and 2 that M.P. Kaushal had both attested the Will and signed the same as an identifier also or that the Will was executed in his presence. 17. It is not even the case of defendants No. 1 and 2 that M.P. Kaushal had both attested the Will and signed the same as an identifier also or that the Will was executed in his presence. 17. In my considered view had it being clarified in the Will itself that M.P. Kaushal had appended his signatures as an attesting witness as well as identifier then it would have been a different matter. However, in the absence of the same, it cannot be inferred that M.P. Kaushal was also an identifier as well as an attesting witness. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be held that the identifier was also the attesting witness. This Court has held in Smt. Punni Vs. Sumer Chand and others, 1994 (2) C.L.J. (H.P.)-290, which judgment has also been relied upon by the learned Appellate Court that unless sufficient and cogent evidence is led to show that the person putting his signature on document signed it for the purpose of attesting it or certifying that he has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature, he cannot be regarded as an attesting witness. 18. In the present case, there is no evidence led by the defendants to substantiate that M.P. Kaushal had put his signatures on the document for the purpose of attesting it. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, he could be treated or termed to be an attesting witness. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 19. The second substantial question of law on which the present appeal was admitted is whether there is total misreading of the evidence of the appellant by both the learned Courts below especially DW2, DW3, DW4 and DW6, which has caused great miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 20. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , that in the cases in which execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the initial onus is on the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes initial onus heavier. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that in such circumstances, the initial onus is on the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes initial onus heavier. Such suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time when the will was made. 21. In the present case, in my considered view, the propounders of the Will have failed to discharge this initial onus as they have not been able to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. 22. Though the purpose of the Will is to deprive the natural heirs from the devolution of the property as per natural succession, however, if the Will is suspicious, then the onus is upon the propounder of the Will to remove that suspicion and if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, then the Court has to give effect to the Will, even if it has cut off whole or in part near relations. 23. The statement of DW-2 Pratap Singh, Tehsildar, is of no assistance to the appellant because this witness has only deposed with regard to the registration of the Will. He is not a witness to the execution of the Will nor it is borne out from his deposition that the Will was executed by the testator as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act in his presence. 24. Similarly, DW-2 Bhagi Rath Sharma has deposed that he wrote the Will as per the wish of the testator. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that whatever document the said scribe writes, he enters the same in his register. It is also borne out from the record and his testimony that he had not produced any register before the learned trial Court to substantiate that any entry was made by him in his register with regard to his scribing the Will on the instructions of deceased Chhitru Ram. 25. Similarly, the testimony of DW-4 M.P. Kaushal, also is of no help to the appellant and his testimony does not inspire any confidence and apparently seems to be incorrect. 25. Similarly, the testimony of DW-4 M.P. Kaushal, also is of no help to the appellant and his testimony does not inspire any confidence and apparently seems to be incorrect. He has deposed that he knew the testator personally and it is he who took the testator to the scribe DW-3 and the testator got the Will scribed in his presence. Thereafter, he has stated that he appended his signatures on the same “Batour Shanakhat Karta”, “Batour Pehchan Karta”. Thereafter, he has stated that Lata Devi and wife of Chhitru appended their signatures and thumb impressions respectively in his presence. He has further deposed that he also identified Chhitru before the Tehsidlar. However, DW-6 Lata Devi has not uttered even a single word that Chhitru had gone to DW-4 and thereafter, DW-4 took them to the scribe. On the contrary, what the said witness has stated is that they came by bus and went to the scribe where her father got the Will prepared and thereafter, they went to Tehsil where their statements were recorded and where the Will was registered. In her cross-examination, she has stated that at the time of execution of the Will, her father was 90 years old. She has also stated that her father died 18 days after the execution of the Will. Thus, it is apparent from the statement of this witness that the factum of presence of DW-4 at the time of execution of Will is no where stated by her. Not only this, none of the witnesses have deposed that the alleged Will was executed by the testator as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 26. Further, if we peruse the statement of DW-5 Narottam Singh in his cross-examination, he has stated that his father-in-law was 95 years old and his mother-in-law was 85 year old and both of them were illiterate. It is further apparent and evident from his statement that he has played major role in the execution of the said Will. Even this witness has not stated that the testator of the Will was taken to the scribe by DW-4 and that the Will was executed in front of DW-4. It is further apparent and evident from his statement that he has played major role in the execution of the said Will. Even this witness has not stated that the testator of the Will was taken to the scribe by DW-4 and that the Will was executed in front of DW-4. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there is any misreading of the evidence of the appellant by the learned Courts below, which has caused any miscarriage of justice to the appellant. This substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 27. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Suraj Vs. Dalip Singh alias Kuldeep Singh, Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1229, has argued that keeping in view the fact that DW-6 was one of the attesting witnesses and she had supported the Will, the Will stood proved in accordance with law. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kashibai and another Vs. Parwatibai and others, 1996 (1) S.L..J. 315, in which it has been held that an attesting witness is a person who in the presence of an executant of a document puts his signature or mark after he has either seen the executant himself or someone on direction of the executant has put his signature or affixed his mark on the document so required to be attested or after he has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or the signature or mark of such other person. Mr. Palsra has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Prabhi Devi & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar & others, Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 377, in which the Will was held to be validly proved by one attesting witness as well as by the scribe. 28. I am afraid, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the present case because the execution of the Will by the testator as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act has not been proved by the beneficiaries of the Will. 28. I am afraid, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are of no assistance in the facts and circumstances of the present case because the execution of the Will by the testator as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act has not been proved by the beneficiaries of the Will. Not only this, the so called attesting witness is the wife of the propounder of the Will and is an interested witness, who has taken active role in the execution of the alleged Will. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Adivekka and others Vs. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (Dead) by LRS. and another, (2007) 7 SCC 91 , that where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propunder to remove suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. Section 63 of the Succession Act lays down the mode and manner in which an unprivileged Will is to be executed. Section 68 of the Evidence Act 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. The proof of Will is not required as a ground of reading the document but to afford the judge reasonable assurance of it as being what it purports to be. 30. This Court held in Fithu Ram alias Pritam Chand Vs. Jit Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2015 (HP) 986, that when a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the defendant has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances and both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence, then there is no need to interfere with the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. 31. This Court has similarly held in Smt. Punni Vs. Sumer Chand and others, AIR 1995 Himachal Pradesh 74, as under:- “10. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act deals with the testator's testamentary capacity. Section 63 lays down certain formalities, which are required to be observed in the execution and attestation of the Will. For the purpose of decision in this appeal, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:- "63. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act deals with the testator's testamentary capacity. Section 63 lays down certain formalities, which are required to be observed in the execution and attestation of the Will. For the purpose of decision in this appeal, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act is relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:- "63. Execution of unprivileged wills. –Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor 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 a effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall he 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," 11. As regards attestation, Clause (c) aforementioned requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses. It is not necessary that both of them be present simultaneously at the time of putting their signatures but the requirement is that each of the attesting witness must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark on the Will. There is also an additional requirement that each of the attesting witness shall also sign the Will in the presence of the testator. There is also an additional requirement that each of the attesting witness shall also sign the Will in the presence of the testator. In Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh, AIR 1955 SC 346 , it was held that in order to prove the due attestation of the will the propouder of the will has to prove that the two attesting witnesses saw the testatory sign the will and that they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator. As regards the proof and attestation, reference was made to Section 68 of the Evidence Act and it was held this it is necessary to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will by calling at least one attesting witness in case he is alive and one cannot presume from the mere signatures appearing at the foot of the endorsement of registration or at the foot of the document that the witnesses had appended their signatures to the documents as attesting witnesses. On the proof of a Will, onus of proof as also the nature of evidence required to be led, in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , it was held that (at pp. 451 and 452 of AIR): "... It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. However, 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." 12. The court also dealt with the requirement, which a propounder has to comply, namely, leading, sufficient and cogent evidence in dispelling any suspicious circumstances attending the due execution of the Will, which need not be reiterated here. Out of the tests, on which emphasis was laid on the determination of the question as to whether a testament produced before the court is or is not the last Will of the testator, is the full and solemn satisfaction that it has been validly executed by the testator, who is no longer alive. Reiterating that no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of evidence, it was observed that ( AIR 1959 SC 443 at p. 452): ".... a propounder of the will has. to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Pared in Harmes v. Hinkson, (1946) 50 Cal WN 895 : AIR 1946 PC 156 where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an abdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth'. It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in the such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilent, cautious and circumspect." 32. When we apply the ratio of the above mentioned judgments keeping in view the facts of the present case, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that both the learned Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that there was no valid Will executed by deceased Chhitru. 33. In view of the findings returned above and law discussed above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, stand disposed of.