JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Defendant-appellant Kali Dass, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.34 of 2000, titled as Kali Dass v. Minki Devi & others, whereby judgment and decree dated 2.5.2000, passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Jogindernagar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.42/95, titled as Minki Devi v. Kali Dass & others, stands affirmed. 2. The core issue, which arises for consideration in the present appeal, is as to whether the Will (Ex.D-1) propounded by the beneficiary (defendant) can be said to be genuine; and proven to have been validly executed by the testator, through the testimonies of scribe Shri Shamsher Chand (DW-2), identifier Shri Ramesh Kumar (DW-3) and attesting witness Shri Bishan Dass (DW-5). 3. Certain facts are not in dispute. (i) Jawahar (testator) is stated to have executed Will dated 10.4.1989 (Ex. D-1), which was registered on 19.4.1989. The challenge is to its validity. (ii) testator died in the year 1990, (iii) at the time of execution of the Will, deceased was 90 years of age, (iv) all of the natural heirs stand excluded. (v) the beneficiary, i.e. Kali Dass is not a direct descendant, being a collateral son of a distant brother of the testator, and (vi) the identifier (DW-3) (a Lawyer) and the attesting witness (DW-4), are close relatives of the beneficiary. 4. On the strength of the Will, defendant claimed ownership of the suit land and the property constructed thereupon, which came to be resisted by plaintiff Minki Devi (daughter-in-law of the testator), by way of filing suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. 5. On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the will dt. 10-4-1989 alleged to have been executed by deceased Jawahar is null and void as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 5. Whether the deceased executed a Will in favour of the defendant No.1 as alleged? OPD 6. Relief. 6. OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 5. Whether the deceased executed a Will in favour of the defendant No.1 as alleged? OPD 6. Relief. 6. Appreciating the evidence led by the parties, and answering the issues in favour of the plaintiffs, trial Court decreed the suit in the following manner: “In view of my findings on the aforesaid issues, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and the impugned will dt. 10-4-1989 alleged to have been executed by deceased Jawahar in favour of defendant No.1 is declared to be null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff and other legal heirs of deceased Jawahar with no order as to cost. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn and file be consigned to the record room after doing the needful.” 7. The lower Appellate Court found the testimony of the attesting witness to be contradictory and also not inspiring in confidence. The Will was found not to have been proven as required under law. 8. The present appeal stands admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the trial Court and the first appellate court erred in holding that the will was invalid because one of the natural heirs has been disinherited? 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record. 10. In M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by LRs. Versus K.M. Veeraje URS (Dead by LRs. And others, (2013) 7 SCC 490 , Supreme Court has reiterated the following principles to be applied, in a case where validity of execution of a Will is in question: 1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 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. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstance that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.” 11. In Smt. Indu Bala Bose and others versus Manindra Chandra Bose and another, (1982) 1 SCC 20 , the apex court has held that mere registration of a will is not proof enough of its valid execution. The onus is on the propounder to remove all doubts and explain the suspicious circumstance, if any, to the fullest satisfaction of the Court. But then it clarified that it is not that any and every circumstance would tantamount to a suspicious circumstance. A circumstance can be said to be suspicious only when it is not normal or is not normally expected of a normal person. However, in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi versus Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, (2006) 13 SCC 433, the apex Court held that suspicious circumstance would exist when a doubt is created in connection with the condition of mind of the testator; his signatures on the Will; disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances. However, in Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi versus Mrudula Jyoti Rao and others, (2006) 13 SCC 433, the apex Court held that suspicious circumstance would exist when a doubt is created in connection with the condition of mind of the testator; his signatures on the Will; disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances. In Gopal Swaroop versus Krishna Murari Mangal and others, (2010) 14 SCC 266 , it has been held that there cannot by any mathematical certainty with regard to proof of Will. 12. Onus of proving the Will, particularly where the direct descendants and close relatives stand excluded, and that too of a person, who is aged, is upon the beneficiary. It is also a settled principle of law that the Will has to be proved to have been validly executed, in the manner stipulated under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 13. Deceased Jawahar had three daughters and one son Devi Ram, who died at a young age of 35 years, leaving behind his widow (plaintiff Minki Devi) and three daughters. Defendant Kali Dass, who is a Government servant, wants the Court to believe that (a) after the death of Devi Ram, he shifted his residence and started residing with Jawahar in his village Banbar, (b) plaintiff Minki Devi, widow of Devi Ram and his three daughters were being looked after by him, (c) he incurred the expenditure for marrying all the three daughters of Devi Ram, and (d) out of his own volition, Jawahar executed a Will in his favour, which was in the knowledge of Minki Devi. 14. Testimony of defendant Kali Dass cannot be said to be truthful or believable. On the question of health of the testator, he has lied. His version that testator became ill only one month prior to his death, till when he enjoyed good health, stands contradicted, in fact belied, from the very document, i.e. Will (Ex. D-1), wherein it is categorically recorded that the testator has not been maintaining good health for the last few years. Thus, whether the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind or not remains unproven on record. D-1), wherein it is categorically recorded that the testator has not been maintaining good health for the last few years. Thus, whether the testator was in a sound disposing state of mind or not remains unproven on record. Court further finds that except for bald statement of the defendant, there is nothing on record to establish (a) that the witness incurred any expenditure at the time of marriage of daughters of Devi Ram, (b) that either he or his family was staying with the testator, muchless taking care of anyone, including the widow and daughters of Devi Ram. In fact, the witness admits to have been residing in another village Dagwan. There is nothing on record to establish that this witness had been tilling the land or had raised any construction thereupon. The witness was employed with the Public Works Department, where he had served for 25 years. Throughout his service, he stayed away from home and as such there is no evidence of his having taken care of the deceased, even by his family members. 15. It is neither the pleaded case of the plaintiff nor the proven case of the beneficiary that deceased was not having cordial relations with his legal heirs. To the contrary, it stands established through the testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses Shri Arjun Singh (PW-1), Shri Daulat Ram (PW-2) and Shri Kahan Singh (PW-3), that it was the plaintiff, who had been taking care of the deceased till he left for his heavenly abode. Thus, there was no reason to exclude the dependants, who were direct beneficiaries. 16. Further, it is admitted case of the defendant, as has come in the unrebutted testimony of Shri Damodar Dass (DW-4), who is the uncle of the beneficiary, that Jawahar “ was rich person and he used to give money on interest”. This admission renders the version of not only this witness but also that of the beneficiary, of incurring expenditure for the marriages to be improbable and untrue. There is no proof of the defendant having shared food or shelter or having rendered services to the deceased/testator. The Will is not free from suspicion. 17. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the beneficiary, the scribe, the identifier and the attesting witness. 18. Scribe Shri Shamsher Chand states that Will (Ex. D-1) was scribed at the instance of the testator in the Court complex, Jogindernagar. The Will is not free from suspicion. 17. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the beneficiary, the scribe, the identifier and the attesting witness. 18. Scribe Shri Shamsher Chand states that Will (Ex. D-1) was scribed at the instance of the testator in the Court complex, Jogindernagar. Though the witness admits of having maintained record thereof, but has chosen not to produce the same. Be that as it may, this version of his stands contradicted by Shri Ramesh Chand, a practicing Advocate and a close relative of the beneficiary, who, in no uncertain terms, states that it was he who had asked the scribe to write the Will. Also, after it was reduced into writing, he explained the same to the testator and thereafter they all went to the office of Sub Registrar at Jogindernagar, where after detailed enquiry the Will was attested. He wants the Court to believe that the Will was scribed and registered the very same day. But, this contradicts the version of the attesting witnesses. Significantly, none from the office of the Sub Registrar stands examined in Court. 19. There is yet another version, which has come on record through the testimony of Shri Damodar Dass (DW-4), who states that Jawahar had sought his opinion with regard to execution of the Will to which he had expressed his no objection. Perhaps his opinion was sought for the reason that he was his son-in-law. Witness states that Shri Bishan Dass accompanied the testator to Jogindernagar for executing the Will. The witness may have been the son-in-law of the deceased, but then, he is also the uncle of the beneficiary. 20. Now, Shri Bishan Dass does not support the version of this witness. He simply states that Jawahar had expressed his desire of executing the Will in favour of the beneficiary, as he wanted to retain the property only in his family. He alongwith Jawahar went to the Tehsil, where Jawahar got prepared the Will from the Petition Writer and after admitting the contents thereof to be correct, Jawahar put his initials in his presence. He further states that he also appended his signatures in the presence of Jawahar and after 8-10 days, Will (Ex. D-1) was registered. Now, Will (Ex. D-1) reveals that there are no initials of the testator. There is only thumb impression. He further states that he also appended his signatures in the presence of Jawahar and after 8-10 days, Will (Ex. D-1) was registered. Now, Will (Ex. D-1) reveals that there are no initials of the testator. There is only thumb impression. Also, the witness does not record the presence of either Shri Damodar Dass or Shri Ramesh Kumar. Crucially, the witness does not even remember the date of the execution of the Will or its registration. His version of Jawahar of having died two years after the execution of the Will is factually incorrect. 21. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.