JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge: This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Civil Appeal Nos. 58/2004, 135/2005 dated 31.03.2008, vide which, learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sundernagar, in Old Civil Suit No. 144/1990, New Civil Suit No. 99/2002, dated 15.06.2004 and allowed the cross objections filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. against findings returned by learned trial Court on Issues No. 1 (a) and 2. 2. This appeal was admitted on 02.06.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:- ?1. Whether any prudent and reasonable man would create tenancy after coming into force the HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1974 knowing fully well that the said tenant would acquire proprietary rights by operation of law? 2. Whether the learned courts below have erred in recording the findings to the effect that there was minor contradictions in the statements of plaintiff's witnesses without taking into consideration the fact that their statements were being recorded after a gap of 8-10 years and such minor contradictions were necessary outcome of passage of time? 3. Whether the learned courts below erred in concluding that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the Will dated 14/5/86 (Ex. PW.2/A) and 4/11/86 (Ex.PW.2/B)?? 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the =plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land comprised under khewat No. 43, Khatauni No. 61, Khasra No. 1898/1454 old and present Khasra No. 1151 measuring 3-1-15 bighas, situated at village Bhour, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, HP (hereinafter referred to as =suit land') was owned and possessed by the plaintiff as per Will dated 04.11.1986 which was the last Will of deceased Ganga Ram made by him in her favour and entries qua the same in favour of defendant No. 1 as owner thereof and in favour of defendant No. 2 as non occupancy tenant thereupon were wrong, illegal, null and void. It was further prayed that as the defendants had taken over the forcible possession over the suit land on the basis of said wrong and illegal revenue entries, possession of suit land be also delivered to the plaintiff as a consequential relief. According to the plaintiff, suit land was owned and possessed by one Shri Ganga Ram who during his lifetime was looked after and maintained by the plaintiff and out of love and affection and in lieu of services rendered to him by the plaintiff, Ganga Ram bequeathed the suit land in her favour by way of a registered Will dated 14.05.1985, which Will was later on revived and confirmed by him vide his last and final Will dated 04.11.1986, which Will was also executed by Ganga Ram in her favour. As per the plaintiff, Ganga Ram died on 07.11.1986 and after his death, she inherited and succeeded to the suit land on the basis of said Will and was in possession of the suit land in her capacity as owner. Further as per the plaintiff, Ganga Ram had not executed any other Will except the abovementioned two Wills in her favour, however, defendant No. 1 managed to obtain one Will in his favour from the deceased which was result of misrepresentation, deception, undue influence and fraud etc.. As per the plaintiff, the forged Will had no weight in the eyes of law. It was her case that in November, 1988, when she had sown wheat crop in the suit land, defendants in connivance with each other re-ploughed the suit land forcibly and changed the crop sown by her and instead had sown their own wheat seeds. As per plaintiff, she requested them not to do so and not to take law in their hands, however, defendant No. 1 disclosed to her that he was recorded as owner of the suit land while defendant No. 2 was non-occupancy tenant in possession under defendant No. 1. It was further the case put up by the plaintiff that thereafter she approached the Patwari Halqa and obtained the copies of revenue record from him and after getting them =visualized' from her counsel, the disclosure of defendant came to light. It was further the case put up by the plaintiff that thereafter she approached the Patwari Halqa and obtained the copies of revenue record from him and after getting them =visualized' from her counsel, the disclosure of defendant came to light. It was further stated by the plaintiff that mutation, if any, concerning the suit land in favour of defendant No. 1 and on the basis of same, subsequent entries in revenue record were wrong, illegal, null and void and inducting defendant No. 2 as non-occupancy tenant over the suit land was also wrong and illegal and without any authority. It was on these bases, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief as mentioned above. 4. The suit filed by the plaintiff as contested by the defendants. As per defendants, suit land was recorded in the ownership of defendant No. 1 and was in possession of defendant No. 2 as non occupancy tenant and thereafter defendant No. 2 had become owner of the suit land by virtue of operation of law. Though, it was admitted by the defendants that the suit land was previously owned and possessed by Ganga Ram, however, it was denied that Ganga Ram was looked after and maintained by the plaintiff during his lifetime. It was further denied that Ganga Ram executed Will in favour of plaintiff out of love and affection. According to the defendants, Will dated 04.11.1986 was not genuine but was a fake and fictitious Will obtained by the plaintiff. According to the defendants though Will dated 14.5.1985 was executed by Ganga Ram in favour of plaintiff, however, the same was subsequently cancelled and in fact Ganga Ram, who was a close relative of defendant No. 1, during his lifetime had executed a registered Will dated 18.5.1985 in favour of defendant No. 1, out of love and affection in lieu of services rendered by defendant No. 1 to Ganga Ram, with regard to his entire moveable and immoveable property. It was further the case of the defendants that Ganga Ram had already inducted defendant No. 2 in possession of the suit land who was in actual possession of the suit land and defendant No. 2 had become owner of the same by operation of law and thereafter the suit land was in ownership and possession of defendant No. 2. It was further the case of the defendants that Ganga Ram had already inducted defendant No. 2 in possession of the suit land who was in actual possession of the suit land and defendant No. 2 had become owner of the same by operation of law and thereafter the suit land was in ownership and possession of defendant No. 2. It was denied by the defendants that Ganga Ram had not executed Will in favour of defendant No. 1 and as per defendants Will dated 18.05.1985 was the last valid Will executed by Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1. As per the defendants, Will dated 18.05.1985 which was executed by Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 was his last valid Will and in fact the plaintiff after she came to know about said last Will of Ganga Ram having been executed in favour of defendant had managed to manufacture and obtain a fictitious Will allegedly executed in her favour by Ganga Ram in order to grab the suit property. It was denied that any revenue entries have been wrongly entered into in favour of defendant No. 1 in connivance of revenue officials or mutation sanctioned in favour of defendants was bad. According to the defendants, mutation proceedings were in full knowledge of the plaintiff and in fact plaintiff had not remained in possession of the suit land at any point of time. It was denied that plaintiff had ever sown any wheat crop over the suit land or she was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land in November, 1988, as alleged. According to the defendants, it was defendant No. 2 who had been cultivating the suit land during the lifetime of deceased Ganga Ram in his capacity as tenant and thereafter he had become owner in possession of the same by operation of law. On these bases, the case of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:- ?1. Whether Ganga Ram executed valid wills dated 14-5-1985 and 4-11-1986 in favour of the plaintiff, if so its effect? … OPP 1 (a) Whether the defendant No. 1/2 was tenant over the suit land and has become owner by operation of law and if so its effect? Whether Ganga Ram executed valid wills dated 14-5-1985 and 4-11-1986 in favour of the plaintiff, if so its effect? … OPP 1 (a) Whether the defendant No. 1/2 was tenant over the suit land and has become owner by operation of law and if so its effect? … OPD 2 1 (b) Whether the plaintiff has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by defendants in November, 1988 as alleged and plaintiff is entitled for relief of possession as claimed? … OPP 2. Whether Ganga Ram executed a valid will dt. 18-5-1985 in favour of defendant No. 1? … OPD 3. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected for non-furnishing of particulars of fraud as alleged? … OPD 179 4. Relief.? 6. On the basis of material placed on record both ocular as well as documentary by the respective parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff after holding that perusal of record demonstrated that plaintiff has failed to prove that deceased Ganga Ram had executed =Will' in favour of plaintiff. It was held by learned trial Court that the case of the plaintiff was that initially Ganga Ram executed a Will PW2/A in her favour which was later on revived and confirmed vide Will Ext. PW2/B dated 04.11.1986. Learned trial Court held that the first suspicious circumstance regarding the execution of Will Ext. PW2/B was the sitting arrangement of scribe, attesting witnesses and the testator. It further held that statements of plaintiff (PW1) and the attesting witnesses were contrary to each other which rendered the presence of all of them at one place to be doubtful. It was further held by the learned trial Court that the second suspicious circumstance was the contention of the plaintiff that the later Will in fact revived the earlier Will executed by Ganga Ram in her favour and also confirmed the same. Learned trial Court held that PW2 Shiv Lal, who was one of the attesting witnesses of the later Will, deposed that Will Ext. PW2/A was read over and thereafter Will Ext. PW2/B was scribed whereas PW3 Nek Ram other attesting witness deposed that no reference of the earlier Will i.e. Ext. PW2/A was made at the time of execution of second Will i.e. Ext. PW2/A was read over and thereafter Will Ext. PW2/B was scribed whereas PW3 Nek Ram other attesting witness deposed that no reference of the earlier Will i.e. Ext. PW2/A was made at the time of execution of second Will i.e. Ext. PW2/B. Learned trial Court also took note of the fact that the third suspicious circumstance surrounding the purportedly Will executed by Ganga Ram in favour of plaintiff was that a school boy was engaged to scribe the Will who had no knowledge about scribing the same. Learned trial Court further held that this witness also admitted that neither earlier Will was shown to him nor any reference was made of the same at the time of execution of Will Ext. PW2/B. Learned trial Court took note of the fact that as per admission of PW5 Lekh Ram, scribe of the Will Ext. PW2/B, he was himself not aware about the meaning of word =Sanad Patra' which was mentioned on the top of the Will Ext. PW2/B and he also admitted that he had not scribed such words on the top of Will Ext. PW2/B. Learned trial Court further held that the fourth suspicious circumstance which shrouded the Will Ext. PW2/B being propounded by deceased Ganga Ram was thumb impression of deceased Ganga Ram. Learned trial Court held that the thumb impression of testator of Will Ganga Ram was not on the documents of Will Ext. PW2/B but was completely on the revenue stamp which was appended on the Will Ext. PW2/B. Said thumb impression nowhere touched paper Ext. PW2/B. In other words, affixation of thumb impression on revenue stamp at the bottom of the document and mentioning of 'Sanad Patra' on the top of the same made the existence of genuineness of such Will doubtful as per the learned trial Court. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that the execution of Will Ext. PW2/B was not proved by the plaintiff. 7. As far as issue pertaining to defendant No. 2 having become owner by operation of law by virtue of defendant No. 2 earlier being tenant over the suit land is concerned, the same was answered against the defendants by the learned trial Court. 8. PW2/B was not proved by the plaintiff. 7. As far as issue pertaining to defendant No. 2 having become owner by operation of law by virtue of defendant No. 2 earlier being tenant over the suit land is concerned, the same was answered against the defendants by the learned trial Court. 8. It was further held by the learned trial Court that plaintiff had failed to prove that she was in possession of the suit land and had been dispossessed from the same. 9. Issue to the effect that Ganga Ram had executed Will DW1/A in favour of defendant was answered against the defendants by the learned trial Court. 10. The issue whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on account of nonfurnishing of particulars of fraud was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants. 11. The judgment and decree so passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the plaintiff by way of appeal. Cross-objections were filed by the defendants against the findings returned against the defendant on issues No. 1 (a) and Issue No. 2. 12. Learned Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff allowed the cross-objections which were filed by the defendants. 13. Learned Appellate Court confirmed the findings returned by the learned trial Court that deceased Ganga Ram had not executed any valid Will in favour of plaintiff, however, it set aside the findings returned by the learned trial Court that Ganga Ram had not executed valid Will dated 18.05.1985 in favour of defendant No. 1. Learned Appellate Court also set aside the findings of the learned trial Court that defendant No. 2 was not tenant over the suit land and had not become owner by operation of law over the same. On the basis of material on record, the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that execution of Will purportedly executed by Ganga Ram in favour of plaintiff, Ext. PW2/B, dated 04.11.1986 was not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law. It was held by the learned Appellate Court that said Will was shrouded with grave and suspicious circumstances and execution thereof had not been duly prove and hence the findings returned by the learned trial Court on issue No. 1 were correct and it could be safely held that the said findings given by the learned trial Court were not liable to be set aside. Learned Appellate Court further held that it was a matter of record that after 3-4 days of the purported execution of alleged Will Ext. PW2/B, Ganga Ram died. It further held that said Will Ext. PW2/B was no Will in the eyes of law whereas Will Ext. DW1/A dated 18.05.1985, which was executed by deceased in favour of defendant No. 1, fulfilled all the necessary requirements as provided under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and it was a valid Will as both the attesting witnesses had seen the testator putting thumb impression on the Will Ext. DW1/A. The scribe of the Will Asif Khan appeared as DW1 and Govind Ram (DW5), one of the attesting witnesses of the said Will, had clearly proved the execution of said Will and these witnesses were not interested witnesses and their statements remained unshattered. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that the other attesting witness of Will Ext. DW1/A was stated to be dead and DW 5 Shri Nirmal Singh, Additional District Magistrate, Hamirpur, who at the relevant time was posted as Sub Registrar at Sundernagar categorically stated that Will in question was read over and explained to Ganga Ram who admitted its correctness. Learned Appellate Court further held that he also proved endorsement qua the registration of the documents Ext. PW5/A to Ext. PW5/C on the Will in question. It was further held by the learned Appellate Court that the statement of Nirmal Singh further proved that deceased Ganga Ram was in his senses and was in sound state of mind when he had executed Will Ext. DW1/A and on these bases, it could be safely held that said Will was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances as defendant No. 1 was real nephew of deceased Ganga Ram and he was looking after deceased Ganga Ram and his last rites were also performed by him (defendant No. 1). It was further held by learned trial Court that Rewati Devi who belonged to a different caste was not even adopted by deceased Ganga Ram as alleged. Learned Appellate Court further held that the findings returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that thumb impression of testator on the Will Ext. DW1/A was not identified by the defendants, was not based on the material on record as the defendants had proved the valid execution of Will Ext. Learned Appellate Court further held that the findings returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that thumb impression of testator on the Will Ext. DW1/A was not identified by the defendants, was not based on the material on record as the defendants had proved the valid execution of Will Ext. DW1/A in favour of Hari Singh, on the basis of which, he had become owner of the suit land. Learned Appellate Court set aside the findings of learned trial Court to this effect. It further held that the factum of defendant No. 2 being a non-occupancy tenant earlier under Ganga Ram and thereafter under defendant No. 1 had been categorically stated by defendant No. 1 Hari Singh and his statement had not been shattered by plaintiff and moreover, the factum of said defendant being in possession of the suit land also proved prima facie that he was inducted as tenant over the suit land during the lifetime of deceased Ganga Ram. On these bases, the findings returned to the contrary by the learned trial Court were set aside. It was on these bases that the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court whereas cross-objections filed by the defendants against the same were allowed. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case as well as the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below. 15. The factum of Will Ext. PW2/B having been executed by Ganga Ram in favour of plaintiff stands concurrently decided against the plaintiff by both the learned Courts below. After taking into consideration the entire evidence on record it was held by the learned trial Court that the purported Will Ext. PW2/B was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. The findings so returned by the learned trial Court have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Findings so returned by both the learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records of the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of statements of plaintiff witnesses plaintiff had proved the execution of Will Ext. PW2/B by Ganga Ram in her favour. 16. Findings so returned by both the learned Courts below are duly borne out from the records of the case. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the basis of statements of plaintiff witnesses plaintiff had proved the execution of Will Ext. PW2/B by Ganga Ram in her favour. 16. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act clearly lays down that every testator 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. (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." 17. 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. 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. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Adivekka and others Vs. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (Dead) by LRS. 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. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Adivekka and others Vs. Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh (Dead) by LRS. and another, (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 91, that where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder 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. In the present case, propounder of Will Ext. PW2/B i.e. the appellant was not able to dispel the suspicious circumstances shrouding the execution of Will Ext. PW2/B. She was not able to discharge this initial onus which is on the propounder of the Will. It could not be proved by her that the Will was executed in the mode and manner as is laid down under Section 63 of the Succession Act. Besides this, as has been taken note by the learned trial Court and in appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the said will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances which were not satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff. 19. Similarly, the findings which have been returned by the learned Appellate Court to the effect that Will Ext. DW1/A was proved to have been validly executed by deceased Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 cannot be faulted with. In my considered view, the findings returned by the learned trial Court that execution of Will Ext. DW1/A which was executed by Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 stood duly proved as per law are the correct findings. In my considered view, the findings returned by the learned trial Court that execution of Will Ext. DW1/A which was executed by Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 stood duly proved as per law are the correct findings. The execution of said Will by Ganga Ram in favour of defendant No. 1 has been duly substantiated by the statements of DW1 Arif Khan, the scribe of the Will and DW5 Govind Ram, one of the attesting witness. It has come in the statement of DW1 that Will Ext. DW1/A was scribed at the instance of Ganga Ram and was read over to him and that at the relevant time he was in a sound disposing state of mind. He also stated that the other attesting witnesses of the said Will were Dila Ram and Govind Ram. In his cross examination, he categorically stated that after the Will Ext. DW1/A was scribed, firstly thumb impression on the same was put by Ganga Ram and thereafter signatures of the attesting witnesses were obtained on the same. He also stated in his cross examination that on the day when the Will Ext. DW1/A was scribed, Ganga Ram was in a sound state of mind and the Will was executed at his instance. Similarly, Govind Ram, one of the attesting witness of Will Ext. DW1/A, who entered the witness box as DW5, has clearly stated that Will Ext. DW1/A was written at the instance of Ganga Ram and when said Will was written, Ganga Ram was in sound state of mind and he (Govind Ram) and Dila Ram were present when said Will was executed. He further deposed that after the Will was executed it was read over to Ganga Ram who admitted it to be correct and thereafter he (Ganga Ram) appended his thumb impression over the same and thereafter attesting witness signed the same. He also stated that Will Ext. DW1/A was taken before the Tehsildar for the purpose of registration and he was also present there at that time. He further stated that Ganga Ram had stated even before the Tehsildar that the Will was correct. Nirmal Singh who entered the witness box as DW6 proved the factum of registration of Will Ext. DW1/A and he also stated that the will was read over to Ganga Ram who admitted the contents of same to be correct. He further stated that Ganga Ram had stated even before the Tehsildar that the Will was correct. Nirmal Singh who entered the witness box as DW6 proved the factum of registration of Will Ext. DW1/A and he also stated that the will was read over to Ganga Ram who admitted the contents of same to be correct. Therefore, on the basis of said evidence produced on record by the defendants, the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court to the effect that execution of Will Ext. DW1/A was duly proved by defendant No. 1 as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act are the correct findings and findings to the contrary recorded by the learned trial Court were rightly set aside by the learned Appellate Court. Similarly, the factum of defendant No. 2 having been initially inducted as a tenant over the suit land by late Shri Ganga Ram and thereafter his continuing to be as such under defendant No. 1 and the factum of defendant No. 2 becoming owner of the suit land by operation of law and thereafter his being in possession of the suit land in his capacity as owner of the same has been duly proved by defendant No. 1. The statement of defendant No. 1 could not be shattered by the plaintiff and there is no reason as to why the same should be disbelieved. The findings returned in this regard by the learned Appellate Court in favour of defendants are also duly borne out from the records of the case and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court was contrary to the material on record. Therefore, learned Appellate Court correctly returned said findings in favour of defendants by allowing the cross objections. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out as to how the findings returned by the learned Appellate Court to this effect were perverse and not borne out from the records of the case. Therefore, in my considered view, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and simultaneously allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree. Therefore, in my considered view, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court whereby it dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and simultaneously allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of.