JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) came to be dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, necessitating the filing of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 02.02.1996 executed by Ram Nath in favour of the defendants was illegal, bogus, fictitious and forged one and was liable to be set-aside. He further sought declaration to the effect that mutation No. 6408 dated 23.02.2009 which was attested on the basis of the Will was liable to be declared as illegal and wrong and not binding upon the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants, who in their written statement raised preliminary objections of estoppel, maintainability, valuation, cause of action and on merits, they claimed their right on the basis of the Will executed by Ram Nath in their favour, who according to them, had executed the Will out of his free volition and in a sound disposing mind and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On 31.05.2011, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether mutation No. 6408 attested on 23.02.2009 is illegal, void and inoperative, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether Ram Nath deceased executed Will dated 02.02.1996 in favour of defendants, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not competent and maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 5. Relief. 5. After recording the evidence led by the parties and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred against such judgment and decree also came to be dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide his judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015. Whether the suit is not competent and maintainable, as alleged? OPD. 5. Relief. 5. After recording the evidence led by the parties and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal preferred against such judgment and decree also came to be dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide his judgment and decree dated 16.12.2015. It is against these concurrent findings of the learned Courts below that the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse inasmuch as the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as also the law on the subject has been totally ignored and, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below ought to be set-aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully and meticulously. 6. It is the admitted case of the parties that late Sh. Ram Nath, was the father of both the contesting parties and was married to one Uma Vati, and they had two sons and four daughters. The defendants No. 1 to 5 are the other son and four daughters of Ram Nath, who have set up the Will in question. 7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1, tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, PW-2 Nihal Singh Thakur and also tendered/proved copies of jamabandis Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/D, copy of mutation Ex.PW-1/E, site plan Ex.PW-2/A and location plan Ex.PW-2/B and closed his evidence. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW-1 Rajesh Kumar, defendant No.1 who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A, DW-2 Sh. Hari Chand, Advocate who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-2/A, DW-3 Bhuvneshwar Dutt, who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-3/A and also tendered/proved voter lists Ex.DW-1/B and Ex.DW-1/C, Will dated 2.2.1996 Ex.DW-2/B and closed their evidence. 8. It is not in dispute but is rather admitted case of the parties that late Sh. Ram Nath was exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, who died on 25.12.2008 and on his demise mutation No. 6408 was sanctioned on 23.2.2009 on the basis of the Will alleged to have been executed by him on 02.02.1996. 9. Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether Sh. Ram Nath in fact executed a registered Will Ex.DW-2/B and while he was in a sound disposing mind. 10. 9. Therefore, the sole question which arises for consideration is whether Sh. Ram Nath in fact executed a registered Will Ex.DW-2/B and while he was in a sound disposing mind. 10. It is settled law that it is for the propounder of the Will to repel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and to prove the genuineness of the Will. Besides this, the propounder would also to satisfy the following points qua the due execution of the Will. (i) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) at the relevant time, testator was in sound disposing state of mind; (iii) testator had understood the nature and effect of depositions and had put his signature on the document of his own free volition and will. 11. DW-2 Hari Chand Thakur is one of the attesting witness of the Will Ex.DW-2/B, who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-2/A in which he deposed the manner in which on 2.2.1996 Sh. Ram Nath son of Shri Daulat Ram got executed a ‘Will’ qua his moveable and immoveable property out of his free will and volition. He also proved the presence of Dhale Ram, Numberdar. He stated that the Will had been scribed by Bhuvneshwar Dutt, deed writer and the same was read over to the testator in their presence and after admitting the same to be correct, the testator had appended his signature in their presence and thereafter he and Dhale Ram, Numberdar attested the Will in the presence of testator. The Will was lateron presented before the Sub Registrar, Kullu by the testator and the witnesses, where the same was also read over and explained to the testator by the Sub Registrar, Kullu and testator had appended his signature in the presence of the witnesses and Will was also signed by him as identifier as well as witness. He also identified his signature on the Will. 12. In cross-examination by the plaintiff, DW-2 stated that he knew Ram Nath personally. He further stated that he was called to identify the document by Ram Nath and he had also appeared as an identifier before the Sub Registrar. He categorically denied the suggestion of the plaintiff that Will Ex.DW-2/B was a false document. He also stated that he did not know the details of the property of Ram Nath. 13. He further stated that he was called to identify the document by Ram Nath and he had also appeared as an identifier before the Sub Registrar. He categorically denied the suggestion of the plaintiff that Will Ex.DW-2/B was a false document. He also stated that he did not know the details of the property of Ram Nath. 13. DW-3 Bhuvneshwar Dutt, is the scribe of the Will, who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.DW-3/A in which he deposed the manner in which Will Ex.DW-2/B had been scribed by him at the instance of Ram Nath. He further stated that the same was read over and explained to him, who after admitting the same to be correct, appended his signature on the Will in his presence and in presence of the witnesses and thereafter the witnesses also appended their signatures on the Will in presence of Ram Nath. He further deposed that Hari Chand, Advocate also attested the Will being identifier of the testator and also being the witness of the Will. He also proved his handwriting and signature on Will Ex.DW-2/B. 14. In cross-examination by the plaintiff, DW-3 stated that no rough draft of the Will was prepared by him. He further stated that he could not re-collect the exact time when the Will was scribed. He denied that Hari Chand was only identifier of the testator and not the witness. He also denied the suggestion that the Will Ex.DW-2/B was a false document. 15. DW-1 Rajesh Kumar, defendant No.1 tendered/ proved his affidavit Ex.DW-1/A in which he deposed verbatim in the same manner as per the averments contained in the written statement. He stated the manner in which his father Sh. Ram Nath was maintained by him, as the plaintiff had been living separately. He further stated that his father had executed a Will in favour of the parties and mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of the Will. He further stated that mutation was sanctioned in presence of the plaintiff. 16. In cross-examination by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 denied the suggestion that his father had never executed any Will or that the suit property had been inherited by the parties in equal shares. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff in terms of the Will had been given a house. 16. In cross-examination by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 denied the suggestion that his father had never executed any Will or that the suit property had been inherited by the parties in equal shares. He further denied the suggestion that the plaintiff in terms of the Will had been given a house. He also denied the suggestion that the mutation was got sanctioned behind the back of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff was also maintaining his father Ram Nath. 17. Coming to the evidence of the plaintiff, it would be noticed that PW-1 is none other than the plaintiff himself, who tendered/proved his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A, in which he testified on oath the contents of the plaint by stating the manner in which his father had never executed any Will and claimed that the suit property had been inherited by the parties in equal shares. He further deposed that the defendants in connivance with revenue officials got mutation sanctioned qua the share of his father on the basis of some forged Will and he came to know about the mutation when he approached Halqua Patwari. He proved the copies of jamabandis Ex.PW-1/B to Ex.PW-1/D, copy of mutation Ex.PW-1/E and spot map Mark ‘A’. 18. In cross-examination by the defendants, PW-1 categorically admitted that defendant No.1 had been residing in the old house. He also admitted that he had constructed his pucca house in the year 1983-84 in Phati Abadi, but denied that the land for the same had been given by his father. He denied that he for the past 25-30 years had been residing/living separately from his father and that he was not serving his father during his life time. He further admitted that his father was a government servant and was an educated person. He denied that he had appended his signatures at the time of attestation of mutation and at that time his sisters were also present and further denied the suggestion that false suit had been filed by him against the defendants. 19. PW-2 Nihal Singh Thakur, has proved the site plan Ex.PW-2/A and location plan Ex.PW-2/B qua the suit property. In cross-examination on behalf of the defendants, he admitted that he had not verified the khasra number of the property shown in the site plan from the revenue authorities. 20. 19. PW-2 Nihal Singh Thakur, has proved the site plan Ex.PW-2/A and location plan Ex.PW-2/B qua the suit property. In cross-examination on behalf of the defendants, he admitted that he had not verified the khasra number of the property shown in the site plan from the revenue authorities. 20. On close scrutiny of the entire evidence referred to above, it is not difficult to conclude that the Will in question stands duly proved from the statement of the witnesses examined by the defendants. However, Mr. H.S. Rangra, learned counsel for the appellant would again argue that DW-2 Hari Chand Thakur was only an identifier and therefore cannot be considered to be as attesting witness of the Will. This argument is not sustainable as DW-2 in his statement has clearly established that apart from being an identifier he had also attested the Will as an attesting witness. This witness had the necessary animus to attest the Will as a ‘witness’ and not a mere identifier. 21. Evidently, this is not a case where one of the legal heir has been completely disinherited, but the grievance of the appellant is that compared to the other legal heirs, he has got less share in terms of the Will and would, therefore, insisted upon the property being divided in terms of the succession Act. 22. It has come in the Will that the plaintiff was not only residing separately but had not been looking after his father Ram Nath. Therefore, in such circumstances, obviously, Sh. Ram Nath wanted to reward his other son i.e. defendant and his daughters who had been taking care of him by giving them especially defendant No.1 a larger share than what he would have got in case of normal succession. 23. This Court only needs to reiterate that one of the main purpose behind execution of the Will is to alter the normal line of succession. 23. This Court only needs to reiterate that one of the main purpose behind execution of the Will is to alter the normal line of succession. In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and another vs. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRS and others (1995) 4 SCC 459 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and, therefore, the natural heirs would be debarred in every case of will; of course, it may be that in some cases they may be fully debarred whereas in some cases debarring may be partially. 24. That apart, indisputably, the Will Ex.DW-2/B in question is a registered one and is presumed to have been validly executed and the onus of proof, will be on those, who want to off-set the above presumption. 25. In Ningawwa vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar AIR 1968, SC 956, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima-facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” 26. In Prem Singh vs. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353 , it was held as under: “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima-facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” 27. It however, needs to be clarified that though it is always for the propounder of the Will to repel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and to prove its genuineness, the testamentary Court is a Court of conscience and not a Court of suspicion. It is not the law that, whenever a Will is sought to be proved in the Court, the Court should start with the presumption that the Will is not genuine or that it is fraudulent or that the person who chooses to establish the Will must remove all such suspicions even when they are not unreal. 28. It is not the law that, whenever a Will is sought to be proved in the Court, the Court should start with the presumption that the Will is not genuine or that it is fraudulent or that the person who chooses to establish the Will must remove all such suspicions even when they are not unreal. 28. The object of the Court proceedings is not to render the testamentary document ineffective but to make it effective and render the terms of that Will operative. In doing so, the Court has to bear in mind and has to take note of the fact that the testator is not available before the Court to state as to whether the document in fact was his or her last Will or as to whether he or she had signed the same and whether the attestors had signed receiving an acknowledgment from him about the execution of the Will. It is for that reason that the Courts should be cautious while dealing with the evidence placed before it in relation to the execution and attestation of the Will as also the disposing state of mind of the testator. This need for caution cannot be exploited by unscrupulous caveators who choose to cull out imaginary suspicious with a view to prevent the legatees under the Will from claiming the benefit thereunder and to render the Will of the deceased wholly ineffective. In this context, the conduct of the persons who raise the alleged ground for suspicion is also to be looked at in order to judge as to how credible are the grounds for suspicion as sought to be raised by such person. 29. The plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he was rendering services to his father Sh. Ram Nath or residing with him and if not residing, had been regularly taking care and looking after his father. Having failed to do so, there would be no cause for viewing the act of the deceased in executing the Will with suspicion. Even otherwise, the findings rendered by the learned Courts below are primarily pure findings of fact which normally cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 30. Having failed to do so, there would be no cause for viewing the act of the deceased in executing the Will with suspicion. Even otherwise, the findings rendered by the learned Courts below are primarily pure findings of fact which normally cannot be interfered with in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 30. No question of law much less substantial question of law arise for consideration and consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.