JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. As both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, rendered on 16.12.2014 by the District Judge, Dehradun, hence, are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. By way of filing the Second Appeal No. 15 of 2015, the prayer has been advanced to set-aside the said judgment of the learned District Judge, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2008, and also set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2008 passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun in Civil Suit No. 660 of 2003. 3. By way of filing the Second Appeal No. 17 of 2015, the prayer had been advanced to set aside the same judgment of the District Judge, which also deals with the Civil Appeal No. 07-A of 2008. 4. Although, the judgment of the District Judge, impugned herein, deals with yet another Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2010, but there is no indication to the affect of challenging the same in either of these appeals, preferred by the appellants herein. While admitting the Appeal No. 15 of 2015, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: 1. Whether both the Courts below came to the wrong conclusion by non-appreciation of the evidence produced by the appellants? 2. Whether learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality and perversity while not permitting appellants to produce the additional evidence? 5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal No. 17 of 2015, the following substantial questions of law were formulated: 1. Whether learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality and perversity while not permitting the appellants to produce the additional evidence? 2. Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed gross illegality and perversity while rejecting the application bearing no. 56C, 63C, 76C, 69C and 71C filed by the appellants? 6. Thus, it can be noticed that the question no. 2 in Second Appeal No. 15 of 2015 depicts the same language/controversy, which is raised in the questions formulated in Second Appeal No. 17 of 2015 and so this Court would like to adjudicate all these issues (combined) first. 7. Application 56-C was moved under order 41 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Court, invoking the powers of Court permitting the appellant no. 1 Shri Vivek Sharma to produce himself for examination in the Court at the first appellate stage. 8. 7. Application 56-C was moved under order 41 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Court, invoking the powers of Court permitting the appellant no. 1 Shri Vivek Sharma to produce himself for examination in the Court at the first appellate stage. 8. Before proceeding ahead, a short focus on the controversy between the parties is desirably to be drawn, which would further make the things easier to understand if the pedigree of the parties is sketched as herein below:- Deep Chandra Sharma Mahesh Chandra Sharma Smt. Sharad Sharma Suresh Chandra Sharma Vivek Sharma (Son) Ruchi (Daughter) Chameli Devi (Wife) Sunil Kumar Appellant No. 1 (Son) 9. Land pertains to Khasra No. 206 ka, 228, 237ga, 244, 366kha, 369 kha and Khasra No. 787, 799, 923, 1097, 1098 besides other residential properties situated in the village Ajabpur Kalan, Pargana Center, Doon Tehsil/District Dehradun. 10. Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma was the elder brother, who lost his life on 30.6.2001 at 06:35 AM on account of cardiac arrest in CMI hospital, Dehraun at the age of 71. He had served as librarian in Dayanand Govt. Girls College upto 31.7.1990. He left his wife and son aforenamed, surviving, but unfortunately it is an undisputed fact that wife Smt. Chameli Devi, on account of ideological differences between the spouse had segregated from the company of her husband way back in 1963 or so and left to reside at her native place in Lakhimpur Khiri since then and at the time of parting her ways she had carried six month or few years old child Master Sunil Kumar with her. Since then, Sunil Kumar was being brought up by Smt. Chameli Devi. He got himself educated under the imminent shadow of his mother and thus could acquired a government job of a teacher in some school there. 11. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma was younger brother whose son was Vivek and with the passage of time, he got some job in Pune (Maharashtra). He got himself educated under the imminent shadow of his mother and thus could acquired a government job of a teacher in some school there. 11. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma was younger brother whose son was Vivek and with the passage of time, he got some job in Pune (Maharashtra). It has been on the record that since Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma used to live in Dehradun, so for immediate service Smt. Sharad Sharma, the divorced sister of the deceased along with Master Vivek, child that time, were available and to look after his health and convenience Shri Sunil Kumar was not immediately available, because he used to reside along with his mother, but there are several communications revealing that the deceased Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma during his life time was keen to educate his son and to further such object, he used to send money orders along with encouraging words/letters to him. These letters/money orders began from the early 80s onwards. The whole controversy revolves around a ‘Will’, which, as claimed, was executed by Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma in favour of nephew and Smt. Sharad Sharma-the sister. It so happened that in the age span of late sixties his health shattered, inasmuch as, he was admitted to hospital on 07.6.2001 at 10:45 PM and was discharged from the Government Doon hospital on 12.6.2001. His admission and discharge has not been disputed by the appellants, but their version is that after discharge, when he remained at home then he executed this will in the Court campus itself, divesting Mr. Sunil Kumar-the son from the properties movable/immovable owned by him and granting the same to the appellants. After execution of this will, Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma was again got admitted in another hospital CMI, Dehradun on 16.6.2001 and remained there under critical condition till death. This ‘Will’ was attested by the four witnesses:- 1. Shri Ishaque Ali r/o Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun. 2. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma r/o Rajpur, Dehradun. 3. Shri Chandra Bhushan Sharma r/o Ajabpur, Khurd, Dehradun. 4. Shri Javed Akhtar r/o Maan Singh Wala, Dehradun. 12. The testator signed each and every paper of such ‘will’ in Devnagri Hindi script. It was got typed by someone and Shri Vivek Sharma brought testator Shri Suresh Chandra as a pillion on his scooter to the Court, and thereafter, it was so signed. 13. 4. Shri Javed Akhtar r/o Maan Singh Wala, Dehradun. 12. The testator signed each and every paper of such ‘will’ in Devnagri Hindi script. It was got typed by someone and Shri Vivek Sharma brought testator Shri Suresh Chandra as a pillion on his scooter to the Court, and thereafter, it was so signed. 13. After the death of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, the revenue authorities mutated the names of son/wife (son Sunil Kumar and wife Chameli Devi) on 10.7.2001 on the basis of form Pa.Ka.-11 i.e. as envisaged for maintaining the revenue records recognizing succession on the whole agricultural land mentioned in the half yearly Khatoni of 1404 to 1409 Fasli (Annexure 8, in the file of Second Appeal No. 15 of 2015). When this fact of mutation came to the notice of the appellants, they initiated the mutation case No. 6862 of 2001 dated 18.7.2001 with a prayer to set- aside the order dated 10.7.2001, and seeking mutation on their own names on the strength of the ‘Will’, wherein, Shri Ishak Ali PW1 and Shri N.K. Sharma PW2 were examined on behalf of the appellants. These are the same attesting witnesses. On the other hand, Shri Sunil Kumar commenced a Civil Suit No. 660 of 2003 on 28.10.2003 seeking to declare the said Will null and void, alleging it to be forged one, and on the pendency of this Suit in the Civil Court, the file of mutation case, pending before the Revenue officials, had been got called. So, the Revenue Court could not proceed any further because the validity of the Will had to be adjudicated by Civil Court then; which otherwise too, is most appropriate forum for the purpose. 14. It appears that since Shri Vivek Sharma, in the course of few years, had left for Maharashtra to do some job there, he executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Sharad Sharma, his own ‘Buwa’, to proceed with the case, and thus, Shri Vivek Sharma could never be examined before the Trial Court and instead, on the strength of the such Power of Attorney Smt. Sharad Sharma produced herself as a witness. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma produced himself as PW1 and has been cross-examined, at length, by the learned counsels of the defendant (appellant herein). He has proved his case to the hilt and his credibility could not be shaken on any fact. Shri Sunil Kumar Sharma produced himself as PW1 and has been cross-examined, at length, by the learned counsels of the defendant (appellant herein). He has proved his case to the hilt and his credibility could not be shaken on any fact. The averments as stated by him in his plaint have been duly proved by him. PW2 was just a formal witness, a clerk, of the Dayanand Women Training College, who has produced before the Court, the relevant papers regarding post-retiral benefits and pensions of the deceased through list 92 ka. 15. The important witness is Dr. K.B. Joshi-PW3, who was posted in the Doon hospital as cardiologist at the relevant time, when Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma remained admitted under his treatment, but he has stated that the record regarding any patient is kept preserved only for three years even then after receiving the summons, there was a search for the relevant record, but could not be made available. He has proved the discharge slip 55 ga/3 issued on 12.6.2001 and the significant evidence of this slip is that the patient was discharged on personal request. It is difficult to expect from a doctor to remember the patient condition in particular after a gap of almost five years, when he could be produced as a witness in the Court on 29.11.2006. PW4-Shri Pitamber dutt Sharma, who by profession was a retired principal, hence, a man of status and at the same time, a neighbour of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, residing in Ajabpur Kalan, Dehradun itself. He has accepted that Shri Sharma was his relative too. Thus, this witness is acquainted with whole of the family. He has deposed that Shri Sunil Kumar though residing in his maternal grand parents’ house in Lakhimpur Khiri because he was in service there, but he used to call on often to his father during his life time. He was maintaining the good relations with his father. He, in his cross-examination, further ratified that Smt. Chameli Devi lived almost 8 to 10 years with him, but later separated from his company on account of some difference. Out of the wedlock, two children were born, one was the girl, who passed away during the childhood and second son was Mr. Sunil Kumar. He has specifically denied the suggestions put by the defendant counsel that Smt. Chameli Devi resided only for 2 ½ years initially. 16. Out of the wedlock, two children were born, one was the girl, who passed away during the childhood and second son was Mr. Sunil Kumar. He has specifically denied the suggestions put by the defendant counsel that Smt. Chameli Devi resided only for 2 ½ years initially. 16. Further, he has deposed that at the time of death of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, he was in Dehradun and was present at the time of cremation as well. He has denied the suggestion that the cremation/last rituals were performed only by Shri Vivek Sharma, but it was done jointly by Shri Vivek and Shri Sunil. 17. I think, this witness, who possesses a status of a retired principal must be believed in comparison to the version of the defendant himself and his totally biased/interested witness Shri Ishak Ali, who is continuously in possession of the land and enjoying usufructs of the same for a long time under the veil of bataidar or a lessee. 18. Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma is the PW6 in the matter. Although, he was the marginal witness of the claimed ‘Will’, but surprisingly, when he was examined in the Court on 20.3.2007, has denied his acquaintance with Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma. He has also specifically denied the execution of the Will before him. When this denial was in the open Court then all of sudden a new Advocate appeared for the defendant Smt. Sharad Sharma and requested the Court to defer the cross-examination to be continued in the second session of the Court, because as per the versions of new Advocate he had to take instructions of Smt. Sharad Sharma. 19. When after lunch, the case was taken up Smt. Sharad Sharma could not appear and the witness Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma had also been escaped. So, it was inferred that since Shri. Verma has denied the execution of the Will, hence, he has been managed to escape from the Court without completing the evidence. On next date 23.3.2007, when Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma was compelled to appear in the Court, he ratified his previous statement, deposed by him on 20.3.2007. This way, the defendants could not manage Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma even in the span of 1½ months to make him deviate from his previous statement. On next date 23.3.2007, when Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma was compelled to appear in the Court, he ratified his previous statement, deposed by him on 20.3.2007. This way, the defendants could not manage Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma even in the span of 1½ months to make him deviate from his previous statement. It is also relevant to note at this juncture that this witness Shri Chandra Bhushan Verma was also examined by Shri Sunil Kumar as his own witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C. When a criminal complaint case No. 90 of 2003 was lodged by him, against Shri Vivek Sharma for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC for forging the ‘Will’. PW7 Shri Javed Akhtar has also been examined, he has also been attesting witness on the ‘Will’ in dispute and has deposed that he was introduced by the executor of the ‘Will’ on the same date, when Smt. Sharad Sharma and Shri Vivek were with him. They had already reduced in writing the ‘Will’ on a paper, which was got typed on a computer. He put his signatures only after seeing the signatures of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma. Further, he has deposed that he put his signatures on the pursuation of Shri Sunil Chandra Sharma because he assured that some criminal case, which was pending against him will be ensured to do away with. 20. On behalf of the defendant Smt. Sharad Sharma (by vocation an Anganwadi worker in the Government) produced her as a witness on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of Shri Vivek Sharma, her nephew. Both are the propounders of the Will. 21. DW2 is Shri Ishak Ali, whose integrity is of no worth, as have been indicated above, because he was enjoying the usufructs of the land in question for a long period, either as a lessee or as a bataidar. So, his all interest is to keep the land in his possession by one way or the other and that is possible only if this forged Will is believed by the Court to be genuine. So, his all interest is to keep the land in his possession by one way or the other and that is possible only if this forged Will is believed by the Court to be genuine. His statement is quite unbelievable because on page 4 of his deposition he has said that before death Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma came to his house on 14.6.2001 and on 15.6.2001 he called him at his house, while DW1 Smt. Sharad Sharma in her deposition on page 9 has said that Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma was not in a position to tell his name, age, address etc. since 16.6.2001 onwards. Is it not appalling that a person of such a disposition could reach the house of DW2 Ishak Ali on 14.6.2001 after remaining admitted in the hospital w.e.f. 07.6.2001 to 12.6.2001? 22. DW3 Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma, who is the father of Shri Vivek Sharma, so he is also perfectly interested witness and can not be believed because all his interest lies that the land in question must not go to the son of the deceased, but it must come under the ownership of his own son Shri Vivek Sharma. 23. It has been in the evidence that in a critical condition the testator Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma was brought to the Court by Shri Vivek Sharma. So, learned Civil Judge has opined that it was only Shri Vivek Sharma, who could have been the best witness to disclose the physical state of body and mind of the testator but he has not been examined. In that eventuality, the execution of the ‘Will’ becomes doubtful. However, on the grounds stated, the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the signatures of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma are original and real, therefore, issue in this regard was decided accordingly, but since the ‘Will’ by itself held to be never executed by its testator in his sound disposition of mind, where against the burden was upon Shri Vivek Sharma to prove, but he could not discharge such onus, hence, such ‘Will’ was declared to be void. Against the finding of declaration of the Will to be void, the Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2008 was preferred by Shri Vivek Sharma, while against the finding of holding the signatures to be genuine, the cross appeal of 7A of 2008 was filed by Shri Sunil Kumar. Against the finding of declaration of the Will to be void, the Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2008 was preferred by Shri Vivek Sharma, while against the finding of holding the signatures to be genuine, the cross appeal of 7A of 2008 was filed by Shri Sunil Kumar. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, preferred by Shri Vivek Sharma and allowed the cross appeal preferred by Shri Sunil Kumar, holding that the signatures on the Will too were also forged and fabricated and not the real signatures of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma for the reasons as have been disclosed in detail disquisitions in the judgment. 24. Now, I come to the applications, which were moved from time to time, when application 56C was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which was rejected by the Appellate Court on 25.7.2013. This application was for the purpose that the defendant should be permitted to produce Shri Vivek Sharma in the witness box. Against the rejection of such application a Writ Petition No. 18070 of 2013 (M/S) was filed, which was allowed quashing the order dated 25.7.2013 and the Appellate Court was directed to reconsider the application and decide the same at the time of deciding the appeal without being prejudiced by the earlier order. On giving further considerations the learned Appellate Court, at the time of writing the final judgments has rejected the application no. 56C again for the reason that no fruitful purpose would have been served even if Shri Vivek Sharma might have called in the witness box because at the most he could have said that the testator was in the quite healthy state of mind and body at the time of his signatures on the said ‘Will’. This deposition of him was of no avail for the reasons that he was an immediate beneficiary of the ‘Will’, while the execution of the ‘Will’ and its genuineness was shrouded with so many doubts. 25. In case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur & others reported in 1977 AIR SC 74 a constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the principals, which should be applied to test a ‘Will’ on the anvil of its genuineness. It has been held that the cases, in which the execution of the ‘Will’ is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, stand on a different footing. It has been held that the 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 can not 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 disposition state of mind and memory at the time when the Will was made. 26. In yet another very celebrated judgment on the subject the four judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rani Purnima Devi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and another reported in AIR 1962 SC 567 . It was held that the onus of proving the ‘Will’ was on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the ‘Will’ proof of testamentary capacity and signatures of the testator as required by law was sufficient to discharge the onus. It was for the propounder to satisfy the conscious of the Court. Hon’ble Apex Court, further said that in such cases, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document was executed as the last ‘Will’ of the testator. Further, a propounder himself might take a prominent part in the execution of the ‘Will’, which conferred on him substantial benefits. If this was so, it was generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder was required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. 27. The learned counsel of the appellants has argued that the High Court vide its order dated 07.8.2013 directed the First Appellate Court to reconsider the said application, even then such application has been rejected. I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel of the appellants because the High Court vide its order, never directed to allow this application. But, the First Appellate Court was asked to reconsider the said application and decide the same at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 28. I am unable to agree with the said contention of the learned counsel of the appellants because the High Court vide its order, never directed to allow this application. But, the First Appellate Court was asked to reconsider the said application and decide the same at the time of final hearing of the appeal. 28. Since, it has been settled position of law that since Shri Vivek Sharma was the immediate and prominent beneficiary of the ‘Will’. Hence, his deposition to the fact of verifying the signatures of the testator on the ‘Will’ could not have removed the doubts, which are shrouding on the genuineness of the ‘Will’. His statement in the witness box, in his favour was not enough to generate the confidence in the mind of the Court regarding the genuineness of the ‘Will’ because independent attesting witnesses have already denied its execution in the spirit of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and that apart, Order 41 Rule 27(b) is only for the Court, when it feels it necessary any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment then only such powers can be exercised and not at the behest of any interested party. The appellant also could not show any reason as to why Shri Vivek Sharma could not produce himself in the witness box, all the same, the case was being litigated by his power of attorney holder, real buwa, Smt. Sharad Sharma, who was an equal beneficiary in the ‘Will’. 29. Application 63-C was also moved at the appellate stage to summon Shri Abhishek Vashishtha, the fingerprint and hand writing analyst, so that the plaintiffs could made available an opportunity to cross-examine him. This application was also rejected by the Court and I think, it was rightly rejected, because Shri Abhishek Vashishtha, who submitted his affidavit in the form of chief-examination on 30.11.2007, was the private fingerprint/hand writing expert engaged by the defendants on payment, who was of the view that the signatures on the claimed ‘Will’ were genuine, but he was never produced by the defendants in the witness box. So without facing the cross-examination, his report, as submitted by him, was of no avail, and moreso when it was shrouded with so many doubts as have been elaborated in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. So without facing the cross-examination, his report, as submitted by him, was of no avail, and moreso when it was shrouded with so many doubts as have been elaborated in the judgment of the First Appellate Court. On the other hand, the private handwriting expert (engaged by plaintiff), who has opined that the signatures on the said ‘Will’ were forged and were not of Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma, as compared to his original signatures, when produced for cross-examinations in the witness box, his credibility could not be shaken. 30. Another application 69C, which also met the same fate of rejection by the Lower Court and such application was moved that the Doctor, who has prepared death summary of the deceased Mr. Suresh Chandra Sharma should be called up to appear alongwith all relevant records before the Hon’ble Court. In this regard, even if the death summary report is proved by any of the Doctor, it will not serve any purpose, because it pertains of the date of admission w.e.f. 16th May, 2001 uptill the date of death on 30.06.2001. While the disputed ‘Will’ was executed on 15.06.2001. So moving this application was of no avail. And it has rightly been rejected. It is not far to discern that the purpose of moving these irrelevant applications was to prolong the litigation as much as possible, so that the enjoyment of usufructs of this vast land may remain continue. 31. Another application 67-C was moved praying to issue summons to be served upon CMO, Dehradun submitting to the Court its report. It also could not have serve any purpose because the CMO is not supposed to know the mind disposition of each and every patient admitted in the hospital and that too of a common patient admitted four and half years ago. The attending doctor K.B. Joshi, has already made the things clear in this regard, which has been discussed herein above. So, I think this application has rightly been rejected. 32. Application 71-C was moved to file certain papers, which were nothing, but the copy of the affidavit moved by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma and Ishak Ali before some Revenue Officials and probably in Mutation Case No. 6862 of 2001. That also would not have served any purpose, because these two witnesses have been produced before the Civil Court and they were duly cross-examined at length. That also would not have served any purpose, because these two witnesses have been produced before the Civil Court and they were duly cross-examined at length. The credibility of their deposition has already been discussed by me herein above. 33. In view of what has been discussed, the substantial questions of law regarding not permitting the appellants to produce additional evidence, are decided against the appellants herein and in favour of the respondent no.1-Shri Sunil Kumar. 34. Now I come to the appreciation of evidence evaluating the genuineness of the ‘Will’. 35. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has relied upon the precedent in Savithri and ors. Vs. Karthyayani Amma and ors., reported in AIR 2008 SC 300 . In that case, the testator was a cancer patient, living with his sister. Sister, her son and grand sons were looking after him. Bequest of property, in such circumstances, was executed in favour of nephew and nieces of the testator. It was held to be natural, because the ‘Will’ was registered one and was not cancelled, though testator lived for seven years after its execution. The facts by itself were deemed to be sufficient to uphold the Will. It was further held that deprivation of a due share to the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of Will. For the said purpose, the background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son was not meeting his father (testator). He had not been attending to him. He was not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from a long time, when his father lost his job, till his death. The testator was living with his sister and her children. If in that situation, he executed a ‘Will’ in favour of his nephew and nieces, who looked after him, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, under the Will something was left for the son. This precedent was relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant has no applicability in present circumstances and controversy for the reasons that the real son of the testator, who is contesting respondent herein, was having continuous contacts with his father. Even then, under the Will something was left for the son. This precedent was relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant has no applicability in present circumstances and controversy for the reasons that the real son of the testator, who is contesting respondent herein, was having continuous contacts with his father. There are more than 20-25-30 letters and money orders receipts having filed on the record in order to prove that there was all natural love and affection, which a father was yielding in the proper bringing up and education of his son Sunil Kumar, ever since he entered into the age of adolescence. PW4 Pitamber Dutt Sharma, a retired Principal, who is also neighbour as well as near relation of the deceased, has proved this type of relation of the testator with his son. Since he was pursuing his education, while living with his mother, hence it was not desirable as well as convenient for him to attend his father every time and wherefor, it may be acceptable that the care would have extended by the appellants herein. There was yet another charm for the appellants to have taken every such care, because Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma was a retired pensioner, fetching a good pension and the amount of pension was enough and to spare for sole Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma and this would have been a big cause that the appellants were caring of him. Besides the pension, he had other incomes from the big agricultural field, which is the subject matter of the Will itself. As regards the pensionery benefits, the papers on record show that the competent authorities have found the wife of the deceased to be the eligible person to receive his pension after his death and otherwise also the right of receiving the pension cannot be transferred by way of making any endorsement on any paper. As regards to other dues, which have been left by Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma, have been made received to his wife Smt. Chameli Devi. 36. Mere getting issued a receipt of purchasing the firewoods for cremation in the name of Shri Vivek Sharma or producing the photographs participating in some formal religious rituals, after the cremation, is not enough to hold that the deceased was inclined to execute the Will in his favour. 37. 36. Mere getting issued a receipt of purchasing the firewoods for cremation in the name of Shri Vivek Sharma or producing the photographs participating in some formal religious rituals, after the cremation, is not enough to hold that the deceased was inclined to execute the Will in his favour. 37. This Court do not intend to burden the judgment again by reproducing all those reasons, which have been delved by the 1st Appellate Court in its judgment for holding that the signatures of Shri Suresh Chandra Sharma were quite forged and he was not in a fit and healthy disposition of mind and body on the relevant date and time, when the ‘Will’ was shown to be executed in the Collectorate. I perfectly concur the view of the learned 1st Appellate Court for the same reasons and do not find any infirmity in the judgment under challenge. Substantial question of law mixed with facts in this regards is answered accordingly. 38. As a consequence, these Second Appeals are bereft of any merits and liable to be dismissed. But at the same time, it would be desirable to hold that such persons, who kept on enjoying the benefits, usufructs of the property on the strength of the forged ‘Will’ forcing the rightful owner to face long litigation should not be left simply by losing their case. It would be desirable to dismiss both the said appeals with exercise of powers vested in this Court under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to impose the cost of atleast Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) payable to the respondent. 39. Consequently, both these appeals are hereby dismissed accordingly and Rs. Two lakhs shall be recoverable from the appellants jointly and severally. The Trial Court will be quick in executing the decree without any further delay and would not entertain any bogus applications moved to hamper the course of execution or justice any further.