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 17.9.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000, passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P., whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiffs’) for declaration with permanent injunction and in the alternative suit for possession was partly decreed and they were declared joint owners in possession of suit land i.e. land measuring 2-19- 70 Hects being 1/3rd share out of land measuring 6-59-11 Hects comprised in Khewat No.72, Khatauni No.131 to 134 and at present Khasra Nos.897, 900, 904, 909, 1197, 1558, 1684, 896, 905, 907, 1205, 1207, 1208, 895, 896/1, 906, 908, 1198, 1199, 898, 899, 901 to 903, 1203 and 1204 as entered in the Missalhaquiat Settlement for the year 1988-89, situated in village Pirthipur, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. except the land measuring 0-56-74 Hects being 1/3rd share out of land measuring 1-70-22 Hects as it has been sold by Hari Singh to defendant vide sale deeds Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3 to the extent of 1/5th share each and defendant was restrained from ousting the plaintiffs from joint possession, raising any construction till partition. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondent-plaintiff Sheela Devi filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land measuring 2-76-44 Hects., description whereof has been given in the head-note of the plaint, situated in village Pirthipur, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the extent of 1/5th share each, and mutation Nos.35 and 75, dated 21.10.1991 of the estate of Shri Hari Singh son of Shri Jallu deceased exclusively in the name of defendant No.1 are absolutely, wrong, false, frivolous, baseless, illegal, at the back of the plaintiff, null and void and confer no valid title on the defendant No.1, consequential suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from ousting the plaintiff from joint possession, raising any construction, transferring or alienating the suit land in any manner till partition, in the alternative suit for joint possession. Plaintiffs averred in the plaint that the suit land was owned and possessed by Hari Singh son of Shri Jallu and he died intestate leaving behind the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendants who succeeded him after his death and are joint owners in possession of the same. Plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1, who is a headstrong and influential lady, in connivance with the revenue staff got sanctioned mutation Nos.34 and 75 dated 21.10.1991 from Assistant Collector 2nd Grade exclusively in her name as the successor of deceased Hari Singh. Plaintiff further claimed that at the time of sanctioning of aforesaid mutations, she was never informed and as such, these mutations are wrong, illegal, baseless as Hari Singh died intestate and after his death all the parties are entitled to succeed him. Plaintiff further claimed that despite there being several requests, defendant No.1 refused to admit her claim as a result of which she filed suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land is jointly owned and possessed by the parties to the extent of 1/5th share each. 3. Defendant No.1, by way of filing written statement, refuted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground of maintainability and estoppel. On merits defendant claimed that her late father Shri Hari Singh was residing with her and she was looking after him. She further claimed that Shri Hari Singh sold some portion of the suit land to her as the plaintiffs had refused to look after him and to take his property. Defendant No.1 further averred that since the deceased was living with her, he, out of love and affection, disposed of whole of his property in favour of defendant No.1 by way of registered Will dated 9.3.1990. Defendant No.1 further averred that the Will was executed with the consent of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs at the instance of one Duni Chand, who intended to purchase the suit property, filed this suit against defendant No.1. In the aforesaid background the defendant sought 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 and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. In the aforesaid background the defendant sought 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 and controverted the contrary averments made in the written statement. It is specifically averred by the plaintiffs that there is neither any such sale deed nor Will which was ever executed by late Shri Hari Singh in favour of the defendant during his life. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for determination:- “1. Whether the suit land is owned and possessed by the parties as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether deceased Hari Singh executed a valid Will dated 9.3.1990 in favour of defendant as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file this suit by their acts and conduct? OPD. 6. Relief.” 6. Subsequently, vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.2000 learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs declaring the parties to the suit joint owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/5th share each except the land which was sold by Hari Singh to defendant No.1 vide sale deeds Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3. 7. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.192/2K RBT 153/04/2000, but fact remains that appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed as a result of which judgment and decree passed by the trial Court came to be upheld. Hence, present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant praying therein for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 8. This Court vide order dated 9.11.2010 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the learned courts below were correct in accepting the validity of the execution of the sale deed Ext.D-1 and out-rightly rejecting the validity and authenticity of the registered Will i.e. Ext.D-2 when the same were executed in the same circumstances? 2. This Court vide order dated 9.11.2010 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the learned courts below were correct in accepting the validity of the execution of the sale deed Ext.D-1 and out-rightly rejecting the validity and authenticity of the registered Will i.e. Ext.D-2 when the same were executed in the same circumstances? 2. Whether the learned courts below could have ignored the due registration of the Will Ext.D-2 wherein the marginal witnesses had clearly identified the status of testator before Sub Registrar?” 9. Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, vehemently argued that judgments passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable and same are not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties as well as law and as such same deserve to be quashed and set aside. While referring to the judgments passed by both the Courts below, Mr.Sharma forcefully contended that bare perusal of the same suggests that evidence led on record by the defendant was not appreciated in its right perspective. Rather, judgments are based upon conjectures and surmises and as such same cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr.Sharma further argued that bare perusal of evidence led on record by the defendant would go to show that defendants were able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that deceased Hari Singh had executed a Will bequeathing his entire property in favour of defendant. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, he invited the attention of this Court to the depositions made by defendant witnesses to demonstrate that all the defendant witnesses in no uncertain terms stated that Will in question was duly executed by late Shri Hari Singh in favour of defendant and as such judgment which is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Sharma further argued that being a propounder of Will defendant No.1 discharged his onus by proving on record that Will in question was executed by late Shri Hari Singh in sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his entire property in favour of defendant No.1, but despite that Courts below returned erroneous findings as a result of which great prejudice has been caused to the defendant. While referring to the statement of DW-1, who is deed writer, Mr.Sharma stated that Court below itself appreciated his statement because bare perusal of statement suggests that two documents i.e. sale deed, Ex.D-1 and Will Ex.D-2 have been written on the direction of deceased Shri Hari Singh and thereafter it has been read over to the executant, who upon hearing and admitting the contents to be correct, put his signatures in Urdu upon the documents and the witnesses also put their signatures on the documents. He further stated that Ex.D-3 also being a sale deed finds mention at the relevant place. He forcefully contended that both the learned Courts below have applied different yardsticks while accepting the execution of sale deed Ex.D-1 and rejecting the authenticity, if any, of Will Ex.D-2. He further stated that the Courts below have come to believe the execution of the said sale deed and at the same time have not believed the veracity of the said registered Will executed by deceased Hari Singh in favour of his daughter i.e. appellant-defendant. He stated that both the documents were duly recorded in the register maintained by DW-1 and as such there is no occasion with the learned Courts below to believe veracity of the sale deed and to disbelieve the veracity of the said registered Will. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Sharma stated that there was no suspicious circumstance, as has been held by the learned trial Court, with which Will was termed to be shrouded, rather there was overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive of the fact that Will was free from suspicion and was executed by deceased Hari Singh in sound and disposing state of mind without there being any coercion and undue influence. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Sharma, prayed for acceptance of appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 10. Mr.N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, supported the judgment passed by both the Courts below. Mr.Thakur, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below suggests that the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no scope, whatsoever, of interference of this Court. Mr.N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs, supported the judgment passed by both the Courts below. Mr.Thakur, vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below suggests that the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record and there is no scope, whatsoever, of interference of this Court. While referring to the judgment passed by both the Courts below, Mr.Thakur argued with full vehemence that bare perusal of impugned judgments suggest that both the Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and as such there is no scope, whatsoever, to re-appreciate the evidence especially in view of concurrent findings of fact and law recorded by both the Courts below. While refuting the contention put forth on behalf of the learned counsel representing the appellant-defendant that there is total misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence, Mr.Thakur invited the attention of the Court to the evidence led on record by the respective parties to demonstrate that at no point of time defendant was able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that Will Ex.D-2 was duly executed by deceased Shri Hari Singh. At this stage he invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act to demonstrate that it was incumbent upon the defendant being propounder of the Will to cite either of two marginal witnesses as a witness in support of valid execution of Will. He contended that it is undisputed that no marginal witness was cited as a witness in support of Will Ex.D-2 and as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below. 11. Mr.Thakur, learned Senior 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 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. 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 his 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 . 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 13. Keeping in view the text and nature of the substantial questions of law reproduced hereinabove, this Court would be taking up both the questions together for consideration. During proceedings of the case, this Court had an occasion to peruse the impugned judgments as well as evidence led on record, be it ocular or documentary, by respective parties, perusal whereof nowhere suggests that there is any illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by both the Courts below, rather same appear to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties. However, this Court, solely with a view to explore the answer to the aforesaid substantial questions of law, critically analysed the evidence on record. 14. In the instant case, plaintiff Smt.Sheela Devi filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction that suit land, as described above, is jointly owned and possessed by the parties being successor of Hari Singh son of Jallu and mutation No.75, dated 21st October, 1991 exclusive in the name of defendant No.1 is baseless, wrong, frivolous, null and void. Plaintiff claimed that suit land was owned and possessed by Hari Singh and he died intestate leaving behind the parties as his successor-in-interest to succeed his moveable and immovable property and as such after his death they are joint owners in possession of the property, whereas, defendant, though not disputed the relationship with the plaintiff, claimed that suit land was disposed of by the deceased by way of sale deed in her favour and since she was looking after the deceased and was living with him, he (deceased Hari Singh) out of love and affection bequeathed the entire property in her favour and as such plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the land as being claimed in the plaint. Defendant also claimed herself to be in possession of the property left by deceased by way of Will and by way of purchase. 15. Since plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the joint owners in possession of the suit land being successors of deceased Hari Singh, question which arises for consideration of this Court is, “whether findings returned by both the Courts below that Will Ex.D-1 is not a valid, legal and genuine Will of the deceased Hari Singh, is sustainable in view of the evidence adduced on record or not?” Defendant, while refuting the claim of the plaintiff set up a case that vide Will Ex.D-1 and Sale Deed Ex.D-2, deceased Hari Singh bequeathed and sold his property in her favour. She further claimed in written statement that deceased Hari Singh executed a Registered Will dated 9.3.1990, on account of love and affection, in sound and disposing state of mind, in favour of the defendant and Will was executed with the express and implied consent of the plaintiffs and the husband of plaintiff Urmila Devi was an attesting witness to the Will and the Will was executed with his consent. 16. 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 . 17. 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 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 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) 18. 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 to before , to prove the same. 19. (Page-531) 18. 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 to before , to prove the same. 19. 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 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) 20. In the present case, defendant with a view to prove valid execution of the Will examined eight witnesses and placed documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3 on the record. DW-1 is the scribe of the documents Ex.D-1 to D-3. DW-2 to DW-4 and DW-6 have been examined to prove the registration of Will Ex.D-2. In the present case, defendant with a view to prove valid execution of the Will examined eight witnesses and placed documents Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-3 on the record. DW-1 is the scribe of the documents Ex.D-1 to D-3. DW-2 to DW-4 and DW-6 have been examined to prove the registration of Will Ex.D-2. DW-3 and DW-5 are the marginal witnesses to the sale deed Ex.D-3. DW-7 is the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Dangoh, who was examined to prove a copy of family register Ex.DW-7/A of late Shri Hari Singh. DW-8 is the defendant herself. 21. As per defendant, Will Ex.D-2, dated 9.3.1990 was executed by late Shri Hari Singh in her favour. While perusing aforesaid documents, this Court found that there were two marginal witnesses; namely; Bal Kishan Namberdar and Hardeep Singh. But, unfortunately, none of these aforesaid marginal witnesses i.e. attesting witnesses were ever examined by the defendant as a witness in the Court to prove the execution of Will Ex.D-2. Similarly, none of the defendant witnesses, as have been detailed hereinabove, has stated anything with regard to nonciting of marginal witnesses. There is no explanation, worth the name, on record that why these marginal witnesses were not examined to prove the valid execution of Will Ex.D-2. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce Section 63 of the Indian Successions Act, 1925 as well as Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act: “Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 12 [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 has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or 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.” “Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872” “68 Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness 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: 1[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]” 22. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that execution of Will needs to be proved by examining at-least one of attesting witnesses. In the instant case, as has been noticed above, none of marginal witnesses i.e. Bal Kishan Namberdar and Hardeep Singh have been examined to prove the valid execution of the Will and as such Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that defendant was not able to prove on record valid execution of Will Ex.D-2. 23. Similarly, as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act once existence of some documents is denied, same cannot be taken into consideration in evidence unless one attesting witness is called/examined to prove the execution of the document, if alive. 23. Similarly, as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act once existence of some documents is denied, same cannot be taken into consideration in evidence unless one attesting witness is called/examined to prove the execution of the document, if alive. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that there is no explanation, if any, with regard to absence of attesting witness; there is no whisper, if any, with regard to the whereabouts of the attesting witnesses. None of defendant witnesses have stated anything whether attesting witnesses were alive or not at the time of proving the same in the Court of law. Since defendant miserably failed to prove the valid execution of the Will Ex.D-2 strictly in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of Indian Evidence Act, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below. 24. True, it is that in the case at hand defendant by way of examining scribe of the Will as well as Sub Registrar before whom the Will in question was registered and Registration Clerk, made an attempt to prove the valid execution of Will Ex.D-2, but, as has been noticed and observed above, that no marginal witness, who had appended their signatures at the time of scribing of Will has been examined and as such there is no force much less substantial in the contention raised on behalf of learned counsel representing the defendant that defendant was able to prove on record, by leading cogent and convincing evidence, that the Will ExD-2 was validly executed by deceased Hari Singh. 25. As far as execution of sale deed i.e. Ex.D-1 is concerned, it emerge from the record that defendant though relied upon same set of evidence, which was applied in the case of proving the Will Ex.D-2, but in that case defendant successfully proved on record that sale deed Ex.D-1 was validly executed in her favour by deceased Shri Hari Singh. 26. DW-1 Amin Chand, while deposing in the witness box, stated that he prepared two documents, entered in his register at Sr.No.84 and 25, in favour of defendant Raj Kumari and both these documents were witnessed by two witnesses; namely; Bal Kishan and Hardeep Singh. 26. DW-1 Amin Chand, while deposing in the witness box, stated that he prepared two documents, entered in his register at Sr.No.84 and 25, in favour of defendant Raj Kumari and both these documents were witnessed by two witnesses; namely; Bal Kishan and Hardeep Singh. He stated that documents i.e. sale deed Ex.D-1, Will Ex.D-2 and sale deed Ex.D-3 were written by him at the direction of executant Hari Singh. But, as has been noticed above, defendant has not examined any of the aforesaid marginal witnesses to prove the valid execution of Will Ex.D-2. He has further stated that documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 were written by him at the direction of late Shri Hari Singh (executant) and thereafter it was read-over to him and after hearing and admitting the contents of same correct, the executant put his signatures in Urdu upon the documents and the witnesses had also put their signatures on the same. He further stated that he has seen sale deed dated 19.10.1990, Ex.D-3, which was also written by him. 27. DW-2 Gurbachan Singh, Registration Clerk, deposed on oath before the Court that on document Ex.D-1, he has seen endorsement Ex.DW-2/A, which was signed by Sub- Registrar. Ex.DW-2/B and Ex.DW-2/C were also signed by Shri Ratti Ram Sharma, Registrar (Naib Tehsildar). It also emerge from the record that on the same day defendant No.1 got executed a sale deed Ex.D-1 of same land in favour of defendant from late Shri Hari Singh and both these documents i.e. sale deed Ex.D-1 and Will Ex.D-2 were executed on 9.3.1990. 28. Similarly, DW-3 Bakil Chand also deposed on oath that he was witness to tatima sale deed Ex.D-3 and he also put his signatures on the document which was also read over to them by the person who has written it. He also admitted his signatures under red circle in Ex.D- 3 on endrosment Ex.DW-2/B. 29. DW-4 Shri S.L. Negi also stated that he has seen documents Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 and his signatures are not appearing on these documents and signatures of Ratti Ram appear on the said documents as he recognize his signatures. 30. DW-5 Renu Devi deposed on oath before the Court that she is Numberdar of village Anora. DW-4 Shri S.L. Negi also stated that he has seen documents Ex.D-1, Ex.D-2 and Ex.D-3 and his signatures are not appearing on these documents and signatures of Ratti Ram appear on the said documents as he recognize his signatures. 30. DW-5 Renu Devi deposed on oath before the Court that she is Numberdar of village Anora. She stated that she has seen Tatima sale deed Ex.D-3 upon which she put her signatures as witness and petition writer also read-over the contents of said documents to Hari Singh and he put his signatures in Urdu upon the said documents after admitting it to be correct. She further stated that Tehsildar also obtained the signatures of parties on the sale deed endorsement Ex.DW-2/B and Hari Singh executant also put his signatures on the same. She further admitted that police case pertaining to false identification is under trial in the Court at Dehra. 31. DW-6 Ratti Ram deposed before the Court that in the year 1990 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Amb. Will Ex.D-2 came to him for registration on 9.3.1990 which was presented by Hari Singh testator. He further stated that Hari Singh testator was identified by witnesses Bal Kishan Numberdar and Hardeep Singh. 32. DW-2 Gurbachan Singh, Registration Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar also stated that endorsement Ex.DW-2/A has been made by Sub Registrar, Amb and Sub-Registrar obtained the signatures of the witnesses and parties on Ex.D-1. He further stated that documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.DW-2/B and Ex.DW-2/C were signed by Shri Ratti Ram, Naib Tehsildar. 33. Conjoint reading of aforesaid evidence led on record by the defendant suggests that the defendant was able to prove on record that sale deed Ex.D-1 was registered but admittedly, as has been noticed above, defendant was not able to prove on record by way of pleadings, cogent and reliable evidence that Will Ex.D-2 in question was validly executed. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that there is non-compliance of provisions contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that defendant was not able to prove on record that Will was validly executed. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that there is non-compliance of provisions contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that defendant was not able to prove on record that Will was validly executed. But if evidence led on record by defendant is read in its entirety, it stands duly proved on record that defendant was able to prove on record that sale deed Ex.D-1 was duly executed by Shri Hari Singh in her favour and same was registered with the Sub Registrar, Amb, who before registering the same, read over and explained the same to Hari Singh, who lateron appended his signatures upon the same in the presence of witnesses. Moreover, careful perusal of plaint filed by the plaintiff nowhere suggests that there was challenge, if any, to the sale deed, rather plaintiff, while terming mutation Nos. 34 and 75, dated 21.10.1991 wrong, false, frivolous has only stated that deceased Hari Singh died intestate and as such there was no occasion to enter mutation in the name of defendant. Defendant by way of written statement claimed herself to be owner of the land on the strength of sale deed Ex.D-1 and Will Ex.D-2 executed in her favour by the deceased Hari Singh. 34. 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 reappreciation of evidence. 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 reappreciation 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) 35. As has been noticed above, it was essential for thedefendant being propouder of the Will to cite one of the marginal witness to prove the valid execution of Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and requirement of law could not be overlooked or filled up solely in viewof the statement of Sub Registrar who registered the Will Ex.D-2, wherein he stated that marginal witnesses had identified the status of testator before him. Hence, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the judgment passed by both the Courts below. 36. 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 finding 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 that the defendant has not been able to make out a case to persuade this Court that document Ex.D-2 is a validly executed Will by deceased Hari Singh in sound disposing state of mind. Hence, present appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.