JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant defendant (hereinafter referred to as the `defendant’) against the judgment and decree dated 13.7.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the Respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the `plaintiffs’) has been decreed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant. It is averred that Paras Ram alias Parsu was joint owner in possession of 6/32 share of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.57/114 to 117, measuring 51-19-17 bighas, situated in village Kahleni, Tehsil Karsog, 3/16 share of land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No.181/361 to 363, measuring 3-4-18 bighas situated in village Lower Karsog, and 3/16 share of Khata/Khatauni No.40/91-92, measuring 16-13-5 bighas. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are the nephews of late Shri Paras Ram, who died issueless on 9.1.1999. It is further averred that said Parsu was looked after and maintained by the plaintiffs during his old age and in lieu of the services rendered by them, said Parsu had executed a Will dated 22.12.1980 (Ex.PW-2/A) in their favour. Thus, on the death of Parsu his estate was inherited by the plaintiffs and as such they are owners in possession of the share of deceased Parsu in the suit land. It is further alleged that the defendant is widow of one Juhru and not the widow of deceased Parsu. It is alleged that the defendant manipulated a forged will dated 11.9.1987 (Ex.DW-6/A) of deceased Parsu in her favour, whereas said Parsu never executed any will in favour of the defendant and the said will is result of fraud and undue influence. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land and prayed that they be declared owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of valid will dated 22.12.1980 (Ex.PW-2/A) executed by deceased Parsu and that the will dated 11.9.1987 (Ex.DW-6/A), as claimed by the defendant, be declared null and void and that the defendant be restrained from interfering with their possession over the suit land. 3. 3. Defendant, by way of filing written statement, raised preliminary objections on the grounds that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same is not in proper form. On merits, the defendant has admitted the ownership and possession of late Shri Parsu alongwith other co-sharers. It is averred by the defendant that she is legally wedded wife of late Shri Parsu, who was looked after and maintained by her during his old age. It is also alleged by the defendant that she performed all religious obsequies on the death of her husband Parsu. It is alleged by the defendant that said Parsu had executed a valid will dated 11.8.1987 in her favour, which was also registered. The defendant refuted the case of the plaintiffs that Parsu had executed a will dated 22.12.1980 in their favour and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. By way of replication the plaintiffs, while denying the allegations made in the written statement, reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint. 5. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings, settled inasmuch as 6 issues and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. An appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court was dismissed. 6. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(1) Whether once the execution of Will had been admitted unequivocally by the plaintiffs/respondents, whether the onus with regard to alleged fraud and alleged undue influence in the execution of the Will was not on the plaintiffs. (2) Whether the Will Ext.DA/Ex.DW6/A has wrongly been ignored by the learned court below, though legally proved on record? (3) Whether the Courts below correctly recorded the finding that the appellant was legally wedded wife of late Shri Parasia as established by Ex. DA, Ex. DB, Ex. DC and Ex.DW7/A? 7. Needless to say that law regarding nature and onus of the proof of the will is by way of propounder and in that regard the manner in which the evidence is required to be appreciated has been duly prescribed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 . 8. 8. Guidelines framed in H.Venkatachala Iyengar case (supra) were further reiterated by Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and others, AIR 1964 SC 529 . The Court held: “4. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, 1959 (S1) SCR 426 : 1959 AIR(SC) 443) and Rani Purniama Devi v. Khagendra Narayan Dev, 1962 (3) SCR 195 : 1962 AIR(SC) 567). The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no. such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indication in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested. (Page-531) 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant-defendant, submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside being contrary to law and facts. Learned Senior counsel, vehemently argued that the inference and conclusions as drawn by both the Courts below are neither supported by material on record nor by provisions of law. He contended that both the learned Courts below have misread, mis-construed and mis-interpreted the evidence led on record which has resulted in returning of erroneous findings. Mr. Ajay Kumar further contended that the Courts below failed to consider the fact and the settled proposition of law that once execution and registration of Will dated 11.9.1987 in favour of present appellant had been admitted by the plaintiffs-respondents, as such, the onus of proof to the effect that the said will was a result of fraud, undue influence etc. was on plaintiffs-respondents. During arguments having been made, Mr. Ajay Kumar made this Court to travel through the statement adduced on record by the plaintiffs witnesses to demonstrate that not even a single word had been stated by the plaintiffs witnesses that will dated 11.9.1987 is a result of fraud, undue influence and as such both the Courts below have fallen in grave error while discarding duly registered will dated 11.9.1987. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that finding of the Courts below that execution of will in favour of appellant-defendant has not been proved is contrary to law because defendant by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence duly established on record that will dated 11.9.1987 Ex.DW-6/A was duly executed by late Shri Parsu in favour of defendant Smt. Muni. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Ajay Kumar strenuously argued that both the Courts below have failed to take note of provisions of Section 70 of the Indian Successions Act while returning the findings qua the genuineness of will Ex.DW-6/A. As per Mr. Ajay Kumar, if the provision of Section 70 of the Indian Successions Act is read, bare perusal of the same would suggest that if second will has been executed by any person, in that eventuality, the first will shall be deemed to be revoked/cancelled automatically. Hence, findings of both the Courts below that there is no mention of earlier will executed by late Shri Parsu in will dated 11.9.1987 Ex.DW-6/A and as such same cannot be relied upon, rather the same is erroneous and illegal. Mr. Ajay Kumar further contended that Courts below failed to frame proper issue, keeping in view the controversy at hand and as such grave injustice has been caused to the appellant-defendant also. As per Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior counsel, Courts below ought to have framed following issue: “Whether the Will executed and registered by late Parsu dated 11.9.1987 is result of fraud, undue influence etc.? 11. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Ajay Kumar invited the attention of this Court to the findings returned qua issue No.3 to demonstrate that findings returned qua the aforesaid issue deserve to be quashed and set aside being contrary to law applicable to the facts of the present case. Mr. Ajay Kumar vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not appreciated the fact that the allegations of fraud and undue influence etc. were levelled against the petition writer and Sub Registrar, Karsog, who allegedly registered the will dated 11.9.1987 and as such all these persons were required to be impleaded as party in the present suit and no suit was competent and maintainable in the present form without there being any impleadment of aforesaid persons. 12. Mr. Ajay Kumar, while adverting to the evidence adduced on record by the plaintiffs, forcefully contended that both the Courts below have wrongly placed reliance upon the aforesaid witnesses because bare perusal of deposition made by them clearly suggests that they are miserably failed to prove the case of the plaintiffs and as such judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside being totally perverse. 13. 13. Mr.G.R. Palsra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and vehemently argued that no interference, whatsoever, is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter. He also urged that scope of interference by this Court is very limited especially when two Courts have recorded concurrent findings on the facts as well as law. In this regard, to substantiate the aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Question Nos.1 to 3. 15. With a view to answer substantial questions, referred hereinabove, this Court now would be adverting to the evidence led on record by the respective parties to substantiate their claims made in the pleadings. Plaintiffs in the present case, with a view to prove that will dated 22.12.1980 was duly executed by late Shri Parsu in their favour, examined six witnesses. 16. Plaintiff Janku, while appearing as PW-1, categorically stated that Parsu was brother of their father and Smt.Prakarmu was his wife, who had passed away during his life time. He specifically stated that during old age of Parsu, he and his brother looked after him and in lieu of services rendered by them, said Parsu executed a valid will (Ex.PW-2/A) in their favour in the year 1980. It has also come in his statement that will propounded by defendant is a forged will and she is not a wife of Parsu, rather she is wife of one Juhru. In his cross-examination he further reiterated that the will in favour of defendant is a forged will. 17. PW-2 Asha Ram also deposed that the will Ex.PW-2/A was scribed by one Harish at the instance of Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs, on which he and another witness Khyali Ram Pradhan had appended their signatures. 18. Similarly, PW-3 Khyali Ram, Pradhan, who was attesting witness of the will Ex.PW-2/A, stated that the plaintiffs are the nephew of Parsu, who had bequeathed his estate in favour of the plaintiffs. He categorically stated that Parsu executed will Ex.PW-2/A in favour of the plaintiffs. 18. Similarly, PW-3 Khyali Ram, Pradhan, who was attesting witness of the will Ex.PW-2/A, stated that the plaintiffs are the nephew of Parsu, who had bequeathed his estate in favour of the plaintiffs. He categorically stated that Parsu executed will Ex.PW-2/A in favour of the plaintiffs. It has specifically come in his statement that he and Asha Ram were attesting witnesses of the will and they had signed the will Ex.PW-2/A, which was signed by the testator Shri Parsu. 19. PW-4 Daru Ram stated that plaintiffs are nephews of Parsu, who lived with them till his death. He categorically stated that Parsu was looked after by the plaintiffs and after his death all his rites were performed by them. He specifically stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of land of deceased Parsu. 20. PW-6, Harish Sharma, document writer, categorically stated before the trial Court that will Ex.PW-2/A was scribed by him on 22.12.1980 on the instruction of late Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs in the presence of attesting witnesses; namely; Asha Ram and Khyali Ram. He also stated that the witnesses had signed the will in his presence. 21. Conjoint reading of aforesaid evidence, led on record by the plaintiffs in shape of PW-1 to PW-6, leaves no doubt that the plaintiffs were successful in proving that will Ex.PW-2/A was duly executed by late Shri Parsu in their favour. All the plaintiff witnesses have specifically stated that late Shri Parsu was looked after during his old age by the plaintiffs and as such he executed will Ex.PW-2/A in their favour in the year 1980. Since plaintiffs led cogent and convincing evidence in the shape of PW-2 and PW-3, who were attesting witnesses to the will Ex.PW-2/A, have discharged their onus by proving that will was duly executed by late Shri Parsu in their favour. Rather, PW-4 Daru Ram, specifically stated that plaintiffs are in possession of the land of late Shri Parsu. Similarly, if statement of PW-6, Harish, document writer, who scribed the will Ex.PW-2/A, is seen in its totality, he has specifically stated that he scribed the will on the instructions of late Shri Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs that too in the presence of attesting witnesses; namely Asha Ram and Khyali Ram. 22. Similarly, if statement of PW-6, Harish, document writer, who scribed the will Ex.PW-2/A, is seen in its totality, he has specifically stated that he scribed the will on the instructions of late Shri Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs that too in the presence of attesting witnesses; namely Asha Ram and Khyali Ram. 22. Whereas, careful perusal of cross-examination conducted on these witnesses nowhere suggests that the defendant has been able to shatter the testimony of aforesaid plaintiffs witnesses, who have been very-very candid, specific and straight forward, while stating that late Parsu executed a will Ex.PW-2/A on 22.12.1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. 23. Interestingly, learned counsel for the defendant put a suggestion to PW-1 that Parsu had executed a will in favour of Munni Devi in the year 1987, but PW-1 by self stating termed the same as forged one. Interestingly, cross-examination conducted on these plaintiffs witnesses nowhere suggests that any suggestion worth the name with regard to genuineness and correctness of Ex.PW-2/A, whereby Parsu executed a will in favour of plaintiffs, was ever put to them. Moreover, there is no whisper, if any, in the cross-examination with regard to execution, of will Ex.PW-2/A by Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs. Rather, defendant instead of putting suggestion with regard to Ex.PW-2/A asked the plaintiffs’ witnesses with regard to will allegedly made by Parsu in the year 1987 in favour of defendant Munni. 24. Conjoint reading of aforesaid witnesses brought on record by the plaintiffs clearly suggests that plaintiff was successful in proving that will Ex.PW-2/A was validly executed by late Shri Parsu in their favour in accordance with law. Since plaintiffs specifically brought on record attesting witnesses in shape of PW-2 and PW-3, who have categorically proved that will Ex.PW-2/A was signed by late Parsu in their presence and they had also signed the same as marginal witnesses, this Court is of the view that both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiffs were successful in proving that will Ex.PW-2/A was validly executed in their favour by the testator late Shri Parsu. Whereas, apart from perusing the statements of plaintiffs witnesses, this Court had also an occasion to peruse will Ex.PW-2/A which itself suggests that late Parsu had no issue and wife and was residing with the plaintiffs, who used to look after and maintain him during his old age. Whereas, apart from perusing the statements of plaintiffs witnesses, this Court had also an occasion to peruse will Ex.PW-2/A which itself suggests that late Parsu had no issue and wife and was residing with the plaintiffs, who used to look after and maintain him during his old age. Plaintiffs also proved on record that will Ex.PW-2/A was registered with Sub Registrar, Kasauli and as such this Court has all the reasons to accept that will Ex.PW-2/A was validly executed by late Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs. 25. Now, question which remains to be decided is, “Whether Parsu had executed a will Ex.DW-6/A in favour of the defendant or not? 26. In the present case, defendant, with a view to prove that Parsu had executed a will Ex.DW-6/A in her favour, examined as many as 9 witnesses 27. DW-1 defendant herself stated that she was married with Parsu about 22 years back and since then had been living with him till his death. She further stated that Parsu had executed a valid will in her favour about 11 years back in the presence of one Sangat Ram and Dagi. 28. Sangat Ram DW-3, with a view to prove execution of the will, stated that Parsu had executed will in favour of Smt.Muni Devi which was scribed by Diwakar on the instruction of Parsu in his and Dagi’s presence. DW-3 specifically stated that mark `X’ is photocopy of will executed by Parsu but interestingly in the present case DW-3, who was again made to depose as DW-6 in order to prove the execution of will Ex.DW-6/A, stated that will Ex.DW-6/A bears his signature. He also stated that he signed the said will in presence of the Tehsildar. Interestingly, second attesting witness Dagi Ram was not examined by the defendant for the reasons best known to her. Defendant, with a view to prove will Ex.DW-6/A, examined herself as well as Sangat Ram, who allegedly signed the will in presence of the Tehsildar. But interestingly when this Sangat Ram appeared as DW-3, he stated that he was the attesting witness to the will Ex.DW-6/A, but when appeared as DW-6 he admitted his signatures on photocopy of will mark `X’. But interestingly when this Sangat Ram appeared as DW-3, he stated that he was the attesting witness to the will Ex.DW-6/A, but when appeared as DW-6 he admitted his signatures on photocopy of will mark `X’. This Court had an occasion to peruse the documents mark `X’ and Ex.DW-6/A, which clearly show that mark `X’ is not true copy of Ex.DW-6/A. Though perusal of both i.e. mark `X’ and Ex.DW-6/A, suggests that same were executed and registered on 11.9.1987 with Sub Registrar, Kasauli on same date, but interestingly if the contents of both these documents are read, juxtaposing each other, it clearly emerge that document mark `X’ is not true copy of Ex.DW-6/A. It has been mentioned in document mark `X’ that defendant Munni Devi is wife of Juhru and she was residing as a keep of Parsu, whereas Ex.DW-6/A showsa certainly indicates towards suspicious circumstance because at first instance defendant, with a view to prove that Parsu had executed will Ex.DW-6/A in her favour, produced will mark `X’ , but lateron original copy of will allegedly executed by Parsu was also produced which was exhibited as Ex.DW-6/A. But, as has been observed above, if both the documents mark `X’ and Ex.DW-6/A are seen juxtaposing each other, it clearly emerge that recital made in the same is not similar, meaning thereby that mark `X’ cannot be termed to be a photocopy of Ex.DW-6/A at this stage. It is not understood if will Ex.DW-6/A was executed by Parsu in favour of DW-1 Muni Devi, why she did not produce the same at first instance before the Court to prove her claim that Parsu bequeathed his share in suit land by way of will Ex.DW-6/A. Interestingly in the present case, PW-3 attesting witness at first instance stated that he signed Mark `X’ but when he appeared as DW-6 he only contended that Ex.DW-6/A was signed by him but has not stated at all that Ex.DW-6/A was scribed on the instructions of Parsu in presence of Sangat Ram and Dagi and that Parsu signed Ex.DW-6/A in their presence and they also signed the testament in presence of Parsu. The aforesaid statements of defendants witnesses compelled this Court to accept the findings returned by both the Courts below whereby Ex.DW-6/A as well as mark `X’ have been termed to be shrouded by suspicious circumstance. 29. The aforesaid statements of defendants witnesses compelled this Court to accept the findings returned by both the Courts below whereby Ex.DW-6/A as well as mark `X’ have been termed to be shrouded by suspicious circumstance. 29. It clearly emerges from the evidence led on record by the defendant that two different wills were written on the same day but defendant has miserably failed to prove that which will was actually executed by deceased Parsu in her favour before his death bequeathing his share of property in her favour. 30. Apart from above, another attesting witness Dagi was never produced and in his absence statements made by Sangat Ram, who appeared as DW-3 and DW- 6, cannot be accepted on its face value, especially when he admitted his signatures on both the documents i.e. Mark `X’ and Ex.DW-6/A. Otherwise also Sangat Ram nowhere stated that Parsu signed Ex.DW-6/A in his presence. 31. Though normally onus to prove the execution and validity of the will lies upon the propounder but in case when it is alleged by the opposite party that will is not genuine document, onus shifts on the person who alleges the will as being forged, to prove the same. 32. In Daulat Ram and Others vs. Sodha and Others, (2005)1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “10. Will being a document has to be proved by primary evidence except where the Court permits a document to be proved by leading secondary evidence. Since it is required to be attested, as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses 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. In addition, it has to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In addition, it has to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In order to assess as to whether the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document, the propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator and that he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and that the testator had signed it in the presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. But where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove the suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. The burden to prove that the will was forged or that it was obtained under undue influence or coercion or by playing a fraud is on the person who alleges it to be so.” (Page 43) 33. Definitely onus to explain suspicious circumstances, if any, lies on propounder but onus shifts to a person who alleges/level allegations of undue influence, fraud or coercion on the propounder of the will. 34. In Sridevi and Others vs. Jayaraja Shetty and Others, (2005)2 SCC 784 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “11. It is well settled proposition of law that mode of proving the will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The onus to prove the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, need be sufficient to discharge the onus. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would again be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will can be accepted as genuine. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would again be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will can be accepted as genuine. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. In case the person contesting the will alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on him to prove the same. As to what are suspicious circumstances have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. {For this see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors. (1959) Supp.1 SCR 426 and the subsequent judgments Ramachandra Rambux v. Champabai & Ors. (1964) 6 SCR 814 ; Surendra Pal & Ors. v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora & Anr. (1974) 2 SCC 600 ]; Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur & Ors. (1977) 1 SCC 369 ; and Meenakshiammal (Dead) thr. LRs. & Ors. v. Chandrasekaran & Anr. [ (2005) 1 SCC 280 ]” (Page-789) 35. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiffs’ discharged their onus to prove that will Ex.PW-2/A was duly executed by late Parsu in their favour by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Plaintiffs specifically brought on record attesting witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, who categorically stated that Parsu got the will scribed by one Harish in favour of the plaintiffs and he signed the same in their presence. Similarly, scribe Harish also stated that he scribed the will on 22.12.1980 at the instance of Parsu in favour of the plaintiffs in presence of attesting witnesses Asha Ram and Sangat Ram, as such, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the defendant that will Ex.PW-2/A is a result of fraud. Whereas, defendant has miserably failed to prove that will Ex.DW-6/A was allegedly executed by Parsu in favour of defendant, because none of the witnesses prodeuced by the defendant was able to prove that Ex.DW-6/A was executed by late Parsu in their presence. None of the defendant witnesses stated that Parsu got the will scribed by Diwakar in favour of defendant. Whereas, defendant has miserably failed to prove that will Ex.DW-6/A was allegedly executed by Parsu in favour of defendant, because none of the witnesses prodeuced by the defendant was able to prove that Ex.DW-6/A was executed by late Parsu in their presence. None of the defendant witnesses stated that Parsu got the will scribed by Diwakar in favour of defendant. Similarly, none of the defendant witnesses stated that Parsu signed in their presence on the will Ex.DW-6/A. Hence, both the Courts below have not committed any illegality and irregularity while holding that defendant has failed to prove that Ex.DW-6/A was legally executed in her favour, rather, this Court, after perusing the documents mark `X’ and Ex.DW-6/A, is compelled to draw adverse inference against the conduct of the defendant, where defendant, with a view to prove due execution of will, produced two documents terming one i.e. mark `X’ to be photocopy of Ex.DW-6/A, which lateron was not found to be the photocopy of Ex. DW- 6/A. 36. In view of above, this Court sees no illegality, whatsoever, in the judgments passed by the Courts below, whereby both the Courts have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs on the strength of will Ex.PW-2/A, ignoring the will Ex.DW-6/A set up by the defendant. Apart from above, perusal of the evidence led on record nowhere suggests that at any point of time plaintiffs admitted the claim of the defendant that will Ex.DW-6/A and mark `X’ were executed by Parsu in her favour. Whereas, documents as well as evidence available on record by the plaintiffs clearly suggests that they refuted the claim of the defendant that she was legally wedded wife which stands duly proved and corroborated in pursuance to production of document mark `X’ wherein it has been specifically stated that defendant was wife of Juhru. Hence this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below which appears to be based upon correct appreciation of the evidence on record. All the questions are answered accordingly. 37. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. All the questions are answered accordingly. 37. This Court is fully satisfied that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appear to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma’s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 38. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the view that findings returned by the trial Court below which was further upheld by the first appellate Court do not warrant any interference of this Court as findings given on the issues framed by the trial Court below as well as specifically taken up by this Court to reach the root of the controversy appears to be based on correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence. Moreover, as has been discussed in detail above, appellant-defendant has not been able to make out a case to persuade this Court that Ex.PW-2/A is a fake and forged document, got executed by the plaintiffs forcibly using undue influence. Moreover, as has been discussed in detail above, appellant-defendant has not been able to make out a case to persuade this Court that Ex.PW-2/A is a fake and forged document, got executed by the plaintiffs forcibly using undue influence. Defendant also failed to indicate any circumstance which could compel this Court to return the finding that Ex.Pw-2/A was shrouded by suspicion. Hence, present appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. 39. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.