JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J: The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgement and decree recorded by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P., whereby he affirmed the rendition of the learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi. The defendant Chabbi Ram standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded renditions against him by both the learned Courts below concerts through the instant appeal constituted before this Court, to beget reversal of the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below. 2. The facts necessary for rendering a decision in the instant appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants with the allegations that Shri Dile Ram, husband of the plaintiff and father of defendants was owner in possession of the land comprising Khata Khatauni No. 24/26, measuring 14-19-1 bighas situate at Mauja Dhar, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Dile Ram was residing and being looked after by the plaintiff as well as the daughters. The defendant No.1 was not having good relations with the plaintiff and her husband and was residing separately for the last 30 years. The defendant No.1 never rendered any assistance to Shri Dile Ram. Dile Ram did not execute will in favour of defendant No.1. Dile Ram was suffering from senile dementia and was not in sound disposing state of mind. The will was fake document manufactured under suspicious circumstances without making provisions for the maintenance of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 got the mutation of the estate of Dile Ram attested in his favour on the basis of Will without notice to the plaintiff and proforma defendants and the same was illegal, null and void. The plaintiff and proforma defendants were in possession of the suit land and were entitled to inherit the property. The defendant was attempting to dispossess the plaintiff and proforma defendants from the suit land. So, the plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that the plaintiff and proforma defendants being widow and daughters had succeeded to the suit land and the Will and mutation in favour of defendant was wrong, illegal, null and void, alongwith a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from causing interference in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. 3. The defendant contested the suit and rasied preliminary objections about maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel. 3. The defendant contested the suit and rasied preliminary objections about maintainability, locus standi, cause of action and estoppel. On merits the defendant averred that the defendant was residing jointly with the plaintiff and his father and helping them. The defendant was unemployed Matriculate and the father of defendant to get government service deliberately got the family of the defendant recorded separately in the Parivar register. The defendant used to pay the electricity bills. Dile Ram had executed a valid will in sound disposing mind in favour of the defendant. The last rites of Sh. Dile Ram were also performed by the defendant. The defendant was in possession of the suit land. The mutation has also been attested in favour of defendant. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the provocation of proforma defendants No. 2 and 3. The proforma defendants admitted the case of the plaintiff. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the Will dated 26.5.2003 is the result of fraud and is a fake document as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in physical possession of the suit land? OPP. 3. Whether the deceased Dile Ram has executed a valid Will in favour of defendant No.1. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standing to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether no enforceable cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by the own act and conduct to file the suit? OPD. 8. Relief. 5 On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff besides the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred therefrom before it by the defendants. 6. Now the defendant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, assailing the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission on 17.05.2010, this Court admitted the appeal on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- ?Whether the findings of the learned trial Court as well as first Appellate Court are result of complete misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence and material on record and against the settled position of law? Substantial question of law. Substantial question of law. 7. Under Ext.DW-5/A embodying therein a registered testamentary disposition of deceased testator, the latter alienated the suit property qua the defendant Chhabi Ram. However, both the Courts below concurrently concluded of DW-5/A not standing proven to be validly and duly executed. The conclusion aforesaid concurrently recorded by both the Courts below stood anchored upon the factum of a marginal witness thereto while testifying as DW-6 not therein making any communication in tandem with the apposite statutory parameters engrafted in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, tritely qua his seeing the deceased testator embossing his thumb impression thereon in his presence nor also his making any articulation therein qua his thereafter in the presence of deceased signaturing it. 8. True it is qua on a circumspect scanning of the testimony of DW-6, its omitting to unveil the aforesaid apposite communications. However, both the learned Courts below blunted the effect of Ext.DW-5/A after its execution occurring on 26.5.2003 at the Judicial Court Complex, Mandi, it on the same day standing carried to the office of the Sub Registrar concerned for its standing presented thereat for registration besides both the Courts below blunted the effect qua on its standing presented for registration before the Sub Registrar concerned the latter accepting it for registration pre-ponderantly also both the Courts below undermined the effect of a signatured endorsement occurring thereon holding unfoldments of the Sub Registrar concerned on reading over and explaining its contents to the deceased testator also on his thereupon drawing satisfaction qua the deceased testator comprehending them besides accepting the factum of occurrence of his thumb impressions thereon, his thereupon signaturing the apposite endorsement which occurs in Ext.DW-5/A. Both the Courts below also apparently had made short shrift of the factum of the deceased testator at the time contemporaneous to Ext.DW- 5/A standing registered by the Sub Registrar concerned his embossing his thumb impression thereon. Moreover, the tenacity of the factum qua the marginal witnesses thereto also contemporaneous to Ext.DW-5/A standing registered signaturing it also visibly stands negated by both the Courts below. 9. Be that as it may, DW-6 has rendered a testimony qua the deceased testator at the time whereat Ext.DW-5/A stood registered his thereat in his presence embossing his thumb impressions thereon also in his testification he has voiced qua his thereat in the presence of the deceased testator thereat signaturing it. 9. Be that as it may, DW-6 has rendered a testimony qua the deceased testator at the time whereat Ext.DW-5/A stood registered his thereat in his presence embossing his thumb impressions thereon also in his testification he has voiced qua his thereat in the presence of the deceased testator thereat signaturing it. The veracity of the signatures of DW-2 occurring on the endorsements recorded by him in Ext.DW-5/A besides the authenticity of the portrayals held therein qua on the contents Ext.DW-5/A standing read over and explained by him to the deceased testator whereafter his comprehending them also his accepting his thumb impressions occurring thereon, all stand efficaciously testified by the Sub Registrar concerned. The aforesaid testification of DW-2 qua the factum aforesaid has remained unrebutted whereupon this Court is constrained to impute vigorous sanctity to his signatures occurring on the relevant endorsements manifested in DW-2/A besides obviously this Court stands prodded to likewise impute sanctity to the recitals of the relevant signatured endorsements. The testification of a marginal witness to Ext.DW-5/A also the testification of the Sub Registrar concerned acquire a paramount virtue of truth inference whereof stands fostered by their relevant testifications qua the factum probandum deposed by them remaining un-shattered during the course of a rigorous cross-examination to which they stood subjected to. Also the counsel for the plaintiff while holding the aforesaid to cross-examination omitted to unearth any elicitation therefrom manifestive of the thumb impression of the deceased testator occurring thereon being fictitious or their signatures occurring thereon likewise being fictitious. Want of cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses by the learned counsel for the plaintiff qua the aforesaid relevant facet erects an inference of the plaintiff acquiescing to the factum of the thumb impressions of the deceased testator occurring on Ext.DW-5/A standing not stained with any vice of fictitiousness also his acquiescing to the factum of the signatures of the marginal witnesses thereto not suffering from an alike taint. Thereupon it was insagacious for the learned trial Court to merely on DW-6 a marginal witness to Ext.DW-5/A omitting to depose in tandem with the apposite statutory mandate vis.a.vis its execution at the initial stage whereafter it stood registered whereat the apposite statutory mandate stands concurrently testified by DW-5 and DW-6 to beget satiation to conclude qua its thereupon not standing proven to be validly and duly executed. 10. 10. Be that as it may, as aforestated the import besides efficacy of the testimony of the Sub Registrar besides the testimony of the marginal witness to Ext.DW-5/A who deposed as DW-6 stood disimputed credence by the concurrently recorded renditions of the Courts below merely for want of DW-6 not deposing stricto sensu in tandem with the apposite statutory parameters enshrined in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, tritely qua the deceased testator embossing in his presence his thumb impressions on Ext.DW-5/A also his not testifying qua his in the presence of the deceased testator signaturing it. Any emphasizes by the learned Courts below upon statutory satiation standing lent by the testification of a marginal witness thereto, who testified as DW-6 for thereupon Ext.DW-5/A standing concluded to be proven to be validly and duly executed is for reasons ascribed hereinafter unwarranted (a) the plaintiff for reasons aforestated acquiescing to the factum of the relevant signatures occurring thereon holding a virtue of truth. (b) With DW-6 testifying qua at the time contemporaneous to Ext.DW- 5/A standing registered the deceased testator in his presence embossing thereon his thumb impressions whereafter he similarly in the presence of the deceased testator signatured it, testification whereof when remains uneroded subsumes the effect of the earlier part of his testification pertaining to an era whereat it remained unregistered wherein he has omitted to make a pronouncement in tandem with the apposite statutory parameters, omission whereof begot an inapt sequel from both the Courts below qua hence Ext.DW-5/A not standing proven to be validly and duly executed. In making an inapt inference both the learned Courts below remained grossly mindful only to the trite factum qua thereupon though it constituting a stage earlier to the acceptance of Ext.DW-5/A for registration by the Sub Registrar concerned qua hence the relevant testamentary disposition standing unproven by the relevant testification of a marginal witness thereto qua its standing validly and duly executed by the deceased testator nonetheless the factum of Ext.DW-5/A not thereat i.e. prior to its registration standing proven to validly and duly executed stood overridden by its subsequently standing presented for registration by deceased testator Dile Ram whereat the imperative statutory compliances qua the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act stood begotten. Both the learned Courts below in relegating to the realm of oblivion the factum of accomplishment qua the apposite statutory parameters standing begotten at the stage contemporaneous to the registration of Ext.DW-5/A rather theirs contrarily emphasizing upon the testimony of DW-6 rendered qua the occurrence of execution of Ex. DW-5/A at a stage prior to its registration whereon the apposite statutory parameters stood not accomplished whereupon they concluded qua its not standing proven to be validly and duly executed, hence naturally besides visibly misdirected themselves in law. (c) It is a settled proposition of law mandated in Theresa vs. Francis, AIR 1921 Bombay 156 besides in Smt. Asharfi Devi vs. Tirlok Chand and others, AIR 1965 Punjab 140 qua the relevant signatured endorsement occurring in the relevant registered testamentary disposition unveiling therein qua on its contents standing read over and explained to the deceased testator by the Sub Registrar concerned whereafter he on comprehending its recitals besides accepting the occurrence thereon of his signatures mark/thumb impression besides with the Sub Registrar concerned emphatically deposing in tandem thereof, testification whereof remaining unshred also with a marginal witness thereto deposing qua at the stage contemporaneous to the registration of the relevant testamentary disposition of the deceased testator the latter embossing his thumb impressions thereon in his presence whereafter he thereat in the presence of the deceased testator signatured it hence lending corroborative succor to the testification of the Sub Registrar concerned whereupon the latter is construable to be an attesting witness to Ext.DW- 5/A. The natural corollary thereof is of though the testimony of DW-6 apposite to the stage contemporaneous to the registration of Ext.DW-5/A is in absolute concurrence with mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act yet infirmity if any gripping it gets scuttled in the evident face of this Court concluding qua the testimony of the Sub Registrar concerned who testified as DW-6 holding a pedestal alike a marginal witness thereto besides his being construable to be an attesting witness qua Ext. DW-5/A. Herebefore significantly the testification also of a marginal witness to Ext.DW-5/A for the aforesaid reasons preeminently rests the factum of his proving Ext.DW-5/A to be validly and duly executed dehors assumingly the Sub Registrar concerned being not construable to be a marginal witness to Ext.DW-5/A. For all the reasons aforesaid a firm inference is galvanized qua Ext.DW-5/A standing proven to be validly and duly executed. The counsel for the plaintiff has contended of with an endorsement occurring in Ext.PW-2/A disclosing qua Ext.DW-5/A standing accepted as a sale deed renders vulnerable to suspicion the other embodiments recorded therein. However, the mere factum of a signatured recital occurring in Ext.PW-2/B portraying qua its being a sale deed would not erode the efficacy of the testification of DW-6 besides of the Sub Registrar concerned qua it holding embodiments of a testamentary disposition of the deceased testator, also the aforesaid construction on anvil of Ext.PW-2/A would be untenable given the recitals in Ext.DW-5/A holding loud portrayals qua it being a testamentary disposition of the deceased testator. 11. The result of the above discussion is that the appeal preferred by the defendant/appellant herein is allowed and the substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff. The judgements and decrees rendered by the both the Courts below are set aside. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith.