Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 814 (HP)

Moola v. Kisso

2016-05-16

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., affirming the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2002 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 2. For brevity sake, hereinafter, the parties are to be referred to as in the trial Court. 3. The brief facts emerges from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants-respondents alleging that the testator deceased Chet Ram was his real uncle, who used to live with him and he used to look after and maintain deceased Chet Ram during his life. It is alleged that deceased Chet Ram was owner of land bearing Khata – Khatauni No.20/22, measuring 6-6 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos.282, 290, 295, 297, 306 and 314, Kitta 6, situated in Mohal Ghundera Pargana Manjeer, Tehsil Salooni, Distrixct Chamba (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), to the extent of 2/3rd share and had executed the valid will in favour of the plaintiff on 8.4.1984 bequeathing his entire moveable and immoveable property in favour of the plaintiff but the revenue officer did not take into consideration the impugned will and mutation No.145 of inheritance of property of deceased Chet Ram after his death was attested in favour of the plaintiff and present defendants in equal share, which mutation order is illegal, null and void. It is alleged that he requested the defendants to get the revenue entries corrected in his favour but they did not pay any heed to his request. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that he was also not offered reasonable opportunity by the Revenue Officer to produce the impugned will at the time of attestation of mutation of inheritance of property of deceased Chet Ram. As such, this suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff Mulla against the defendants. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants and by way of filing written statement took preliminary objections regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, cause of action and maintainability of the suit in the present form etc. On merits, the defendants refuted the allegations contained in the plaint. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants and by way of filing written statement took preliminary objections regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, cause of action and maintainability of the suit in the present form etc. On merits, the defendants refuted the allegations contained in the plaint. It is alleged by the contesting defendants that deceased Chet Ram was real uncle of plaintiff as well as of the defendants, Mali, Madho, Kisso and Porkhi. They emphatically denied that will dated 8.4.1984 was executed by deceased Chet Ram in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the impugned will is forged and fabricated document and that mutation No.145 qua the property of deceased Chet Ram was validly entered and attested by the revenue officer after affording several opportunities to the plaintiff to produce the impugned will and when he failed to produce the same, mutation was attested qua the property of deceased Chet Ram, which is valid and legal. Hence, the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The learned trial Court, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “1. Whether deceased Chet Ram had executed a valid and legal will dated 8.4.84 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his act and conduct as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 4-A. Whether mutation No.145 qua the estate of deceased Chet Ram attested in favour of the parties is wrong, illegal and incorrect as alleged? OPP. 5. Relief.” 6. The learned trial Court, except issue No.4, decided all the aforesaid issues against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. An appeal preferred before the learned Appellate Court was also dismissed. 7. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “(1) Whether the impugned judgments are vitiated on account of misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence? 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. Controversy involved in the present case is with regard to genuineness of Will Ex.PW-2/A, allegedly executed by deceased Chet Ram in favour of the plaintiff, namely, Mulla. 10. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 9. Controversy involved in the present case is with regard to genuineness of Will Ex.PW-2/A, allegedly executed by deceased Chet Ram in favour of the plaintiff, namely, Mulla. 10. On the strength of will Ex.PW-2/A, allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff by testator deceased Chet Ram, plaintiff filed a suit, description of which has already been given above, in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, seeking declaration to the effect that will Ex.PW-2/A was duly executed by deceased Chet Ram in his favour pertaining to the suit land and mutation No.145, qua the suit land attested in favour of parties, may be declared wrong, incorrect, illegal, not binding upon the plaintiff and further to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering in the suit land. Both the Courts below held that execution of will Ex.PW-2/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and, as such, cannot be held to be valid and genuine will of deceased Chet Ram. As is evident from the substantial question reproduced hereinabove, on which present appeal was admitted; the sole question which is required to be considered by this Court, is, “whether the judgment passed by the Courts below can be termed to be vitiated on account of misreading and misconstruction of the oral as well as documentary evidence”, meaning thereby, to answer the aforesaid substantial question of law, this Court needs to examine the evidence, be it oral or documentary on record, adduced by the parties to the lis. 11. As has been discussed hereinabove, the plaintiff approached the trial Court on the ground that deceased Chet Ram had executed a valid will in his favour bequeathing his property on 8.4.1984, admittedly, onus was upon him to prove that will in question was duly executed in his favour by the testator deceased Chet Ram in accordance with law. 12. Needless to say that law regarding nature and onus of 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 . 13. 13. 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; (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 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 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) 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 15. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently argued that the judgment passed by both the Courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same are not based on the correct appreciation of evidence on record as well as law. He contended that the material available on record was sufficient to hold that will Ex.PW-2/A is a valid and genuine document executed by testator deceased Chet Ram bequeathing his property in favour of the plaintiff. He strenuously argued that in the present case defendants miserably failed to prove that will in question was not genuine and was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. With a view to substantiate his arguments he invited the attention of this Court towards various grounds taken in this appeal as well as statements recorded by the trial Court below at the time of trial, which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 16. Per contra Shri Anand Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, supported the judgment passed by both the Courts below and submitted that bare perusal of the impugned judgments suggest that the same are based on correct appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on record. He pleaded that will Ex.PW-2/A was never executed by deceased Chet Ram and same is a forged and frivolous document got prepared by the plaintiff solely with a view to grab the property of deceased Chet Ram. 17. Mr.Sharma forcefully contended that there is ample evidence, be it ocular or documentary, on record which indicates that will Ex.PW-2/A is forged and frivolous document shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 17. Mr.Sharma forcefully contended that there is ample evidence, be it ocular or documentary, on record which indicates that will Ex.PW-2/A is forged and frivolous document shrouded by suspicious circumstances. He specifically argued that despite several opportunities of being heard afforded by the Assistant Collector-II Class, plaintiff failed to produce will to substantiate his claim that deceased Chet Ram had actually executed will in his favour with the sound disposing state of mind. Mr.Sharma, during his argument, while inviting the attention of this Court towards the statement made by the plaintiff’s witnesses as well as documents placed on record, contended that the plaintiff has miserably failed to place on record any document, be it ocular or documentary, to suggest that testator deceased Chet Ram was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the alleged will. Mr.Sharma while referring to the statements made by the plaintiff witnesses stated that there is no consistency in their statements, rather there are major contradictions and as such both the Courts below have rightly concluded that their versions cannot be believed in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In the present case, plaintiff, with a view to prove valid execution of the will, examined himself as PW-1 and stated that deceased Chet Ram executed a will in his favour which was written in the house of deceased Chet Ram at about 2.00 to 2.30 P.M. by PW-2, namely, Shri Chamaru Ram. He also stated that he was very much present at the time of execution of will and he also signed the will. It also emerges from his statement that he did not state anything from which it could be inferred that deceased Chet Ram executed the alleged will in presence of two attesting witnesses, who actually saw deceased Chet Ram affixing thumb impression upon the will. Rather, PW-1 very candidly stated that at the time of scribing of will at the house of deceased Chet Ram, he was present and he signed the will Ex.PW-2/A in the presence of testator. There is nothing in the statement of PW-1 which suggets that at the time of affixing thumb impression, if any, by deceased Chet Ram, other two attesting witnesses were also present. There is nothing in the statement of PW-1 which suggets that at the time of affixing thumb impression, if any, by deceased Chet Ram, other two attesting witnesses were also present. PW-1 also stated that marginal witnesses and Shri Chamaru who scribe the will were called by his son in the house of Shri Chamaru, which definitely indicates that the plaintiff himself actively participated in the execution of will. 19. PW-2 Shri Chamaru Ram, who allegedly scribed the will, deposed that Ex.PW-2/A was written by him on the instructions of deceased Chet Ram in the presence of witnesses, namely, Bhillo and Sher Singh. He further stated that the contents of the will were read over to Chet Ram, who, after ascertaining the contents of the will to be correct, affixed his thumb impression upon the will. However, in cross-examination he stated that will was written in the house of Chet Ram and he was called by the son of the plaintiff to the house of Chet Ram. He also stated that even witnesses were called by son of the plaintiff. PW-2 also stated that the impugned will also bears the signatures of the plaintiff, meaning thereby the deposition by PW-1 that he also signed the will as well as his version with regard to calling of marginal witnesses and scribe to the house of Chet Ram by his son are correct. Though, from the perusal of the statement made by PW-2, it can be inferred that after scribing the will, PW-2 had read over the contents of the same to deceased Chet Ram, who in lieu of admission of its correctness affixed his thumb impression on the same but there is nothing in the statement of PW-2 to suggest that the testator deceased Chet Ram had actually affixed his thumb impressions upon the impugned will in the presence of the witnesses and further that the witnesses had actually signed the will in the presence of the testator Chet Ram. 20. 20. From combined reading of the statements made by PW-1 and PW-2, it clearly emerges that PW-1 and his family member i.e. his son, actively participated in the execution of the alleged will because it has come in the statements of both these witnesses that scribe as well as marginal witnesses had come to the house of the testator Chet Ram at the behest of PW-1 i.e. propounder of the alleged will. Though, the aforesaid plaintiff witnesses have mentioned with regard to the attesting witnesses, who allegedly affixed their signatures on the impugned will, but as such, there is nothing in their statements from where it can be concluded that at the time of the execution of that alleged will or at the time of affixing thumb impression by testator deceased Chet Ram these attesting witnesses were actually present at the house of Chet Ram. 21. PW-3 Sher Singh, one of the attesting witness of the will, stated that Ex.PW-2/A was written by Chamaru on the instruction of Chet Ram and same were read over to Chet Ram by the scribe Chamaru Ram and then only deceased Chet Ram affixed his thumb impression upon the will. He also stated that he also signed the will alongwith one Bhillo, who was also present there. It emerges from the statement of PW-3 that testator signed the will in presence of two witnesses who also signed the will in the presence of the testator. In his cross-examination PW-3 as well as in the statement of PW-1 it has come that PW-3 is related to the plaintiff. Moreover, the contents of the statement given by PW-3 have not been corroborated by depositions made by PW-1 and PW-2, as has been discussed above, PW-1 and PW-2 have nowhere stated anything with regard to presence of the witnesses at the time of alleged execution of the will by deceased Chet Ram. 22. Since it stands proved on the record that PW-3 is related to plaintiff, in the present facts and circumstances, he has been rightly termed as an interested witness by the Courts below. 22. Since it stands proved on the record that PW-3 is related to plaintiff, in the present facts and circumstances, he has been rightly termed as an interested witness by the Courts below. Moreover, in the present case as per statement of PW-3 he had signed the will as an witness alongwith one Bhillo, but admittedly in the present case plaintiff has not examined Bhillo Ram, who could be another material witness to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff that the will was duly executed by deceased Chet Ram and he had actually affixed thumb impressions upon the will Ex.PW2/A in the presence of the marginal witnesses. As has been observed above, that statement of PW-3 cannot be relied upon because depositions made by PW-1 and PW-2 nowhere corroborate the deposition made by PW-3. Had Bhillo Ram, who was allegedly another witness, who had actually signed the will as a witness, was examined by the plaintiff, version of PW-3 could be believed. Omission of Bhillo Ram from the list of plaintiff witnesses indicates towards suspicious circumstances and there is no explanation on record either in the shape of statement of witnesses or in the shape of documentary evidence with regard to absence of Bhillo, who as per the version of the plaintiff had signed on the will at the time of execution of the will of deceased Chet Ram. Moreover, in the present case none of the plaintiff witnesses have stated with regard to the fact that at the time of execution of the will testator namely Shri Chet Ram was in sound state of mind and he had actually executed a will after fully understanding its contents. None of the plaintiff witnesses except PW-1 i.e. plaintiff himself, stated this fact that alleged will was executed by deceased Chet Ram in his favour with sound disposing state of mind and there was no pressure upon him to execute the will Ex.PW2/A. 23. From the collective reading of the statements rendered by the plaintiff witnesses during trial of the case, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to prove due execution of will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which reads as:- “63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. From the collective reading of the statements rendered by the plaintiff witnesses during trial of the case, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to prove due execution of will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which reads as:- “63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, [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. (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.” 24. As per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act plaintiff was required to prove that at the time of execution of will testator was in sound disposing state of mind to understand the contents of will testament as well as its acquiescence. As has imparted from the records, there is no evidence at all in this regard brought on record by the plaintiff to substantiate that deceased Chet Ram was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the alleged will Ex.PW2/A. 25. As has imparted from the records, there is no evidence at all in this regard brought on record by the plaintiff to substantiate that deceased Chet Ram was in sound state of mind at the time of execution of the alleged will Ex.PW2/A. 25. In the present case, where the defendants had taken specific objection with regard to the genuineness and correctness of the alleged will and had alleged that will Ex.PW- 2/A is fictitious and forged document, onus was upon the plaintiff to dispel the notion that the alleged will has been executed by the testator in sound disposing state of mind and the same was signed by the testator after understanding the contents of the will. But in the present case where the court had occasion to go through the statements of each and every plaintiff witnesses, there is no whisper with regard to the assertion that testator was in sound disposing state of mind and he was capable of understanding the consequences of the execution of the will at the time of execution of the will. Critically noticing the statements made by the plaintiff witnesses as well as documentary evidence available on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the valid execution of the will by deceased Chet Ram in his favour and, as such, both the Courts below have rightly held that the will Ex.PW-2/A is not a genuine will. 26. Now, coming to the statement made by DW-1 Kisso, where he categorically stated that the impugned will is a forged document, as testator Chet Ram never executed a will in favour of the plaintiff. Perusal of the written statement clearly suggests that a specific objection regarding the genuineness of the will has been taken and same has been termed to be a forged one. In his statement, he categorically denied that deceased Chet Ram had ever executed any will, rather he stated that the plaintiff had applied for mutation on the basis of alleged will executed in his favour, but despite 7-8 opportunities he failed to submit the same as such mutation was entered in their favour. Even, perusal of the cross-examination conducted by the plaintiff has nowhere suggests that he ever conflicted from his statement, which he made in the examination-in-chief. Even, perusal of the cross-examination conducted by the plaintiff has nowhere suggests that he ever conflicted from his statement, which he made in the examination-in-chief. Rather, perusal of the same suggests that he stuck to statement he made during the examination-in-chief. 27. As has been noticed above, that 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 as being forged to prove the same. 28. 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) 29. 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) 29. In the present case by way of written statement defendants took specific objection with regard to the genuineness of the alleged will. DW-1 categorically stated in his statement that deceased Chet Ram never executed any will in favour of the plaintiff and will Ex.PW-2/A is forged and fictitious document got executed by the plaintiff after the death of deceased Chet Ram. To substantiate his aforesaid statement, he indicated that strongest suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the will in the present case is that the propounder i.e. the plaintiff has failed to produce the impugned will before the AC-II Grade, Salooni, at the time of attestation of mutation qua the estate of deceased Chet Ram, who also tendered in evidence Ex. D-1, which stands duly proved on record and suggests that number of opportunities were given to the plaintiff by the revenue authorities for placing on record the will, if any, in his favour by deceased Chet Ram, so that mutation is entered accordingly. It is evident from Ex.D-1 that revenue authorities entered the mutation in favour of the plaintiff at first instance qua the suit land on the basis of some will, thereafter on 29.2.1996 when AC-II grade came to attest the said mutation, the plaintiff failed to produce the will before the AC-II Grade. Thereafter, another opportunity was given to him to produce the will on 4.6.1996, he again failed to produce the will. Records suggest that despite several opportunities plaintiff failed to produce the will and finally on 25.7.1997 i.e. almost after one year when the plaintiff did not appear before the ACII Grade on 6.8.1997 AC-II Grade. Several opportunities were given to him to produce the will i.e. on 4.6.1996, 31.8.1996, 25.9.1996, 27.11.1996, 30.4.1997, 16.5.1997, 12.6.1997, 16.7.1997, 25.7.1997 and finally on 6.8.1997 AC-II Grade, in the absence of production of original will attested the mutation qua the estate of deceased Chet Ram in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Successions Act. Several opportunities were given to him to produce the will i.e. on 4.6.1996, 31.8.1996, 25.9.1996, 27.11.1996, 30.4.1997, 16.5.1997, 12.6.1997, 16.7.1997, 25.7.1997 and finally on 6.8.1997 AC-II Grade, in the absence of production of original will attested the mutation qua the estate of deceased Chet Ram in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Successions Act. Perusal of Ex.D-1 leaves no doubt that despite having afforded sufficient opportunities, plaintiff failed to place on record any will till 6th August, 1997 before the AC-II Grade. Though PW-1 in his statement stated that he had produced the impugned will before the AC-II Grade but this statement is not substantiated by any documentary evidence, rather perusal of Ex.D-1 as has been referred above, suggests that at the behest of plaintiff revenue authorities entered mutation but thereafter despite several opportunities, he failed to place on record will, hence, mutation was not attested accordingly. Thus, aforesaid circumstance, where plaintiff failed to produce will for almost one year after being called upon by the revenue authorities indicates towards strongest suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, rather it strengthen the allegations of the defendants that actually this will was got executed by the plaintiff after the death of testator, namely Chet Ram. 30. If the evidence, be it ocular or documentary, available on record adduced by both the parties are seen in its entirety and read conjointly, it can be safely concluded that the will Ex.PW-2/A is shrouded by strong suspicious circumstances, as has been discussed hereinabove. Moreover, the plaintiff has not led any evidence to dispel the cogent, reliable, convincing evidence led on record by defendants to dispel the notion that the will in question is not surrounded by suspicious circumstances. To the contrary, if the assertion made by DW-1, is read with documentary evidence Ex.DW-1, it leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the defendants have discharged their onus by proving that will Ex.PW-2/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. 31. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is compelled to conclude that the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of the evidence, be it ocular or documentary on the record and, as such, substantial question of law framed above is answered accordingly. Hence, present appeal fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. 32. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. Hence, present appeal fails and the same is, accordingly dismissed. 32. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.