JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J: 1. This appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, whereby it allowed the appeal preferred before it by the defendants/respondents herein and set aside the judgment and decree, rendered on 27.04.2004 by the trial Court. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision on the instant appeal are that Gian Chand predecessor in interest of the parties was owner in possession of the suit property i.e. land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 54/58, Khasra Nos. 725, 730, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 769, 770, 772 and 1357/1321-1322 measuring 4-16 bighas and two houses situated in Khasra No. 1092, khata Khatauni No. 124 min/139 Abadi-Deh, situated at Mauza Sherpur, Pargana Sherpur, Tehsil Dalhousie, District Chamba, H.P. Late Gian Chand expired on 6.11.2000 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. After the death of said Gian Chand, defendant No.1 reported the matter to the Patwari concerned and produced a Will allegedly executed by late Gian Chand and A.C 2nd Grade without summoning the plaintiff and proforma defendants attested the mutation of the estate of late Gian Chand on 7.6.2002 vide mutation No. 571. This mutation is against the law and rules. It has been averred that late Gian Chand was a chronic patient of Asthma for the last four years and was under the influence of defendant No.1. He was not in fit mental state to understand his good and bad and was not in proper senses to execute a Will. The plaintiff has started his business in Gujrat and in his absence late Gian Chand was under the complete control of defendant No.1. The alleged will is not a genuine will and is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and proforma defendants. Therefore, it has been prayed that this suit be decreed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is one of the legal heir of late Gian Chand and is owner in possession of 1/5th share of the suit property. The Will dated 2.5.2000 is a fake document and not executed by late Gian Chand out of his free will. It has also been prayed that this mutation No. 571 of 7.6.2002 be declared null and void. It has further been prayed that defendant No.1 be restrained permanently from alienating the suit property. 3. The Will dated 2.5.2000 is a fake document and not executed by late Gian Chand out of his free will. It has also been prayed that this mutation No. 571 of 7.6.2002 be declared null and void. It has further been prayed that defendant No.1 be restrained permanently from alienating the suit property. 3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement and thereby resisted and contested the suit of the plaintiff by taking preliminary objection qua maintainability, limitation, estoppel and suppression of material facts. On merits, the defendant termed the averments made in the plaint as wrong and incorrect and pleaded that the disputed property belongs to him as per valid Will of 2.5.2000. It has been denied that late Gian Chand was a chronic patient of Asthama and was having feeble mind and under his influence. It has been denied that Gian Chand was not in proper state of mind to understand his good and bad. It has been submitted that the plaintiff was settled at Gujrat and never bothered the parents and stopped visiting the family at home. The father and mother of the plaintiff are being looked after by him, since long, therefore, out of his love and affection Gian Chand executed a valid and genuine will in his favour. Therefore, dismissal of the suit is sought. 4. Replication to the written statement filed wherein the averments made in the written statement were controverted and those made in the plaint were re-asserted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether Will executed by late Gian Chand dated 2.5.2000 is genuine one, as alleged? OPD. 3. Whether Will executed by late Gian Chand dated 2.5.2000 is result of undue influence and liable to be set-aside, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether mutation No. 571 dated 7.6.2002 sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 2.5.2000 is null and void and liable to be set-aside, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 8. OPP. 5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 6. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court allowed the suit of the plaintiff yet the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the defendant. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein has instituted before this Court the instant Regular Second Appeal wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 28.06.2005, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- ?Whether the deceased late Shri Gian Chand could have willed away the property in which property the plaintiff-appellant had invested more than Rs.3.00 lakhs?? Substantial question of law. 8. The deceased testator under his testamentary disposition, comprised in Ext.DW-2/A, bestowed upon the legatees thereunder, legatees whereof are the contesting parties hereat, his estate in the manner delineated therein. The grouse which stands ventilated by the plaintiff against the devise made by his deceased father qua his estate under his testamentary disposition comprised in Ext.DW-2/A stands hinged upon the factum of his deceased father devising qua the defendants his land measuring 4.16 bighas besides a newly constructed three storeyed house alongwith a cow shed at Mohal Sherpur whereas in gross disproportion thereof his inequitably devising qua him an old house situated at Drum. He contends of the predominant reason for the deceased testator inequitably distributing his estate inter-se him and the defendant Suneet Singh occurred on account of the defendant dominating the Will of deceased testator arising from the factum of his staying with him. He also contends of the deceased testator at the relevant stage not holding the relevant befitting mental capacity to execute Ext.DW-2/A. He hence impeaches it besides espouses of the aforesaid facet ingraining the execution of Ext.DW-2/A with suspicion whereupon no reliance is imputable. He also contends of the deceased testator at the relevant stage not holding the relevant befitting mental capacity to execute Ext.DW-2/A. He hence impeaches it besides espouses of the aforesaid facet ingraining the execution of Ext.DW-2/A with suspicion whereupon no reliance is imputable. He also proceeds to contend of with the scribe of Ext.DW- 2/A not appending his signatures thereon hence enfeebles the factum of its standing validly and duly executed by the deceased testator. Moreover, the factum of recitals occurring at clause 7 in Ext.DW-2/A standing scored off also imbues it with a pervasive infirmity. The initial submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff qua Ext.DW-2/A holding a recital there within whereby the deceased testator in the manner delineated therein inequitably devised his estate qua his legatees who are the contesting parties hereat whereupon he contends qua its constituting an entrenched besides a pervasive/suspicious circumstance rendering its execution by the deceased testator being construable to ensue from his volition standing dominated by the defendant with a concomitant effect qua Ext.DW-2/A being not his volitional disposition. However, the aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiff warrants its standing discounted given the deceased testator propounding in Ext.DW-2/A the predominant reason for his inequitably devising his estate amongst his legatees, reason whereof stands enunciated therein to spur from his receiving compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- for acquisition of his land wherefrom he disbursed Rs.50,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that he shall invest it in a joint business held with the plaintiff. The deceased testator has also propounded therein of the plaintiff launching a construction company at Angleshwar in Gujarat also his rearing handsome monetary dividends therefrom whereas his in transgression of the condition whereupon he had disbursed Rs.50,000/- to him, his not admitting the defendant as a partner in J.K.Construction Company, contrarily his appropriating the entire earnings reared by him from the aforesaid construction company established by him in Gujarat whereupon the deceased testator for erasing the effect of the purported ouster of the defendant by the plaintiff from the earnings of the construction company aforesaid besides for mitigating the losses suffered by the defendant on his standing excluded by the plaintiff from the earnings of J & K Construction company established by him from a sum of Rs.50,000/- disbursed to him by the deceased testator hence stood stirred to proceed to make a devise qua the defendant in the manner as delineated therein. The aforesaid reason propounded in Ext.DW-2/A by the deceased testator to devise in the manner embodied there within his estate amongst his legatees palpably stands on a pedestal of truth given the acquiescence made by the plaintiff in his testifiation of his deceased father disbursing to him a sum of Rs.50,000/-. He in his cross-examination echoes qua his taking the defendant alongwith him to Gujarat whereat he concedes to keep him till 1997. His cross-examination also unveils qua his therein echoing qua his not admitting the defendant as a partner in the construction company raised by him in Gujarat. The effect of the aforesaid echoings made by the plaintiff in his testificaton is of theirs begetting concurrence with the apposite recitals embodied in Ext. DW- 2/A whereupon the deceased testator stood constrained to make qua his estate a devise qua his legatees in the manner delineated therein. The effect of the aforesaid echoings made by the plaintiff in his testificaton is of theirs begetting concurrence with the apposite recitals embodied in Ext. DW- 2/A whereupon the deceased testator stood constrained to make qua his estate a devise qua his legatees in the manner delineated therein. Also the echoings aforesaid blunt the effect of the suggestion put to the contesting defendant during the course of his standing subjected to cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff wherewithin echoings occur qua on the contesting defendant exiting the relevant construction company in 1997 the plaintiff settling accounts qua his share therein also smother the effect of echoings therein of the defendant by omitting to serve notice qua the factum of the plaintiff not settling the relevant accounts qua his share in J.K.Construction Company his purportedly acquiescing to his receiving from the plaintiff the profits earned from the business of J.K. Construction Company contrarily thereupon the plaintiff holds no leverage to espouse herebefore qua the defendant standing estopped to validate the apposite pronouncements made in Ext.DW-2/A qua the plaintiff grabbing the entire share of the profits reared from the business of J.K.Construction Company, significantly when they constituted the prima donna motivating factor for the deceased testator to make the devise in the manner enshrined in Ext.DW-2/A. Also the effect of the aforesaid echoings held in the aforesaid suggestions put by the counsel for the plaintiff while holding the defendant to cross-examination, is of the plaintiff faintly besides vainingly acquiescing to the factum of his in an unregistered partnership firm nomenclatured as J.K.Construction Company orally admitting the defendant as a partner upto 1997 whereafter he without settling his accounts qua his unscribed share therein, compelled his exit therefrom. The speciousness of the aforesaid concert of the learned counsel for the plaintiff while holding the defendant to cross-examination to hence unearth elicitations from him qua his settling his accounts qua his unscribed share in the business of J.K. Construction Company per se stands generated for merely vainly diminishing the virtue of truth propounded by the deceased testator in Ext.DW-2/A for his devising his estate amongst the legatees named therein in the manner enumerated therein also its effect, if any, stands smothered by his acquiescing in his cross-examination qua his not admitting the defendant as a partner in J. K. Construction company. Cumulatively, also the effect of the aforesaid inference is of his contriving an untenable ground for stripping the tenacity of the recitals occurring in Ext.DW-2/A whereupon the deceased testator stood prodded to oust the plaintiff from his estate except qua an old house at Drum. In aftermath, it appears of the deceased testator for mitigating losses suffered by the defendant in the joint business, which he held with the plaintiff in J.K.Construction company, he stood actuated to devise qua him his estate in the manner enumerated therein also hence the deceased testator in making a devise qua his estate with a pronounced proclivity towards the defendant Suneet Singh does not obviously render Ext.DW-2/A to suffer from any inherent falsity also it hence cannot be concluded of the deceased testator while in executing Ext.DW-2/A, his free volition standing influenced or dominated by the defendant. Contrarily it is to be concluded of Ext.DW-2/A standing volitionally besides consciously executed by the deceased testator. 9. The scribe of Ext.DW-2/A not appending his signature thereon is wholly insignificant, as non occurrence therein of signatures of its scribe stands not constituted in the apposite statutory provisions to be a relevant statutory parameter for adjudging the trite factum qua its valid and due execution, contrarily the factum of the relevant testamentary disposition standing proven to be validly and duly executed would occur only on satiation standing begotten of the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (hereinafter referred to as =the Act'), which stands extracted hereinafter:- ?63. Execution of unprivileged wills .-Every testator, not being soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 1*[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 as 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.? Significantly, when in consonance therewith when an attesting witness thereto pronounces in his testification qua the deceased testator after understanding its contents embossing in his presence his signatures thereon whereafter he in his presence proceeded to also append his signatures thereon would beget the sequel qua hence the aforesaid apposite pronouncement of a marginal witness to a testamentary disposition begetting satiation of the statutory tenets engrafted in Section 63 of the Act. A circumspect incisive scanning of the testimony of DW-2 a marginal witness to Ext.DW-2/A unveils qua his making apposite pronouncements qua satiation standing begotten of the mandate of the apposite statutory provisions engrafted in Section 63 of the Act. Heightened momentum qua Ext.DW-2/A standing clinchingly proven by a marginal witness thereto to be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator emanates from DW-2 unequivocally echoing in his testification qua Ext.DW-2/A standing scribed by an Advocate at the behest of the deceased testator whereat the deceased testator stood possessed of an enlivened befitting mental capacity to volitionally execute it. He has also graphically communicated therein of the deceased testator after its contents standing readover and explained to him by its scribe contents whereof on standing comprehended by him his thereafter appending his signatures thereon whereafter he and the other marginal witnesses thereto likewise in his presence embossed their respective signatures thereon. He has also graphically communicated therein of the deceased testator after its contents standing readover and explained to him by its scribe contents whereof on standing comprehended by him his thereafter appending his signatures thereon whereafter he and the other marginal witnesses thereto likewise in his presence embossed their respective signatures thereon. The aforesaid testification of a marginal witness to Ext.DW-2/A vividly portrays of the deceased testator with an awakened conscious mind voluntarily executing Ext.DW-2/A also portrays of satiation standing begotten of the statutory tenets ingrained in Section 63 of the Act. The apposite pronouncements made by DW-2 qua satiation standing begotten qua the statutory tenets ingrained in Section 63 of the Act thereupon Ext.DW-2/A warrants its standing, concluded to be clinchingly proven to be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator significantly when the testifications qua the facet aforesaid do not suffer any erosion on DW-2 standing subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, palpably when there occurs no apposite suggestion put therein by the learned counsel for the plaintiff while holding him to cross-examination wherewithin bespeakings stand encapsulated qua the deceased testator neither in his presence nor in the presence of the other marginal witness thereto signaturing Ext.DW-2/A nor any suggestion occurs therewithin manifestive of the plaintiff contesting the factum of the marginal witnesses to Ext.DW-2/A not in the presence of the deceased testator appending their respective signatures thereon nor obviously no response in affirmation thereto stands displayed therein. Consequently, the effect of the aforesaid omissions on the part of the learned counsel for the plaintiff while holding DW-2 to cross-examination is of the plaintiff acquiescing to the factum of the deceased testator appending his signatures on Ext.DW-2/A in the presence of DW-2 also the latter besides the other marginal witness thereto respectively in the presence of the deceased testator embossing their respective signatures thereon. In sequel, the befitting conclusion is of the testimony of DW-2 holding concurrence with the statutory tenets enjoined to be accomplished for Ext.DW-2/A being construable to be proven to be validly and duly executed. Consequently, the apt conclusion therefrom is of Ext.DW-2/A standing clinchingly proven to be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended of with occurrence in Ext.DW-2/A qua scoring off of recital number 7 therein renders it to be construable to be a suspicious circumstance. Consequently, the apt conclusion therefrom is of Ext.DW-2/A standing clinchingly proven to be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended of with occurrence in Ext.DW-2/A qua scoring off of recital number 7 therein renders it to be construable to be a suspicious circumstance. The aforesaid submission holds no vigour significantly when the scribe of Ext.DW-2/A records a signatured endorsement therein qua the relevant scoring off, occurring at his instances besides at the behest of the deceased testator. Since Ext.DW-2/A stood thereafter presented for registration, renders, the occurrence of an endorsement therein qua the legalization of the relevant scoring off, of the relevant clause therein, endorsement whereof holds the signatures of the scribe of Ext.DW-2/A besides when its making precedes its standing registered also when in succession thereto, it stood accepted for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned to naturally acquires immense legitimacy besides validation. As a sequitur obviously the relevant scoring off holds concurrence with the relevant endorsement made by its scribe qua its scoring off occurring at the behest of the deceased testator. Ext.DW-2/A is a registered document. Registration of Ext.DW-2/A foists qua it a presumption of validly besides a presumption of truth qua its valid and due execution by the deceased testator. The presumption aforesaid qua Ext.DW-2/A holding truth also qua its hence standing validly and duly executed by the deceased testator stands enhanced by the factum of occurrence of signatures of the deceased on the reverse of the pages of Ext.DW-2/A whereon the apposite recitals stand scribed also gets enhanced from occurrence thereon of seals of the relevant registering authority besides occurrence of signatures thereon of the registering authority. Preponderantly with the Sub Registrar appending his signatures on the endorsements occurring therein displaying qua the deceased testator in his presence proceeding to signature it whereat he stood identified by one Sansarchand, gives heightened momentum to a conclusion of it holding a portrayal of the Sub Registrar concerned holding satisfaction qua the apposite mental capacity of the deceased testator to execute Ext.DW-2/A also his satisfying himself qua his identity. As a sequitur, with the plaintiff not adducing evidence for erasing the presumption of truth foisted to a registered testamentary disposition, secures a firm conclusion from this Court qua its unflinchingly standing proven to be validly and duly executed. 10. As a sequitur, with the plaintiff not adducing evidence for erasing the presumption of truth foisted to a registered testamentary disposition, secures a firm conclusion from this Court qua its unflinchingly standing proven to be validly and duly executed. 10. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge is maintained and affirmed. Substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also disposed of. No costs.