JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the court below. The plaintiff instituted the suit O.S.251/1990 (New No. 92/1997) against the defendants seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of the half share in the suit properties and for permanent injunction against defendants No.2 to 4 or anybody on their behalf not to obstruct with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of her share in the suit properties. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court. 3. The subject matter of the suit is the house property bearing M.P.C.No.317, and open spaces bearing M.P.C.No.318 & 320 situated at Naganur, Hukkeri taluk. The plaintiff contended that she and defendant No.1 are the daughters of Rama Prabhu Guddakayi, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the propositus of the family, who died about 34 years back leaving behind the plaintiff, defendant and their mother. Accordingly, the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 started enjoying the suit properties along with plaintiff and defendant No.1 and her name came to be entered in the suit properties and she died in the year 1968. Since then, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in enjoyment of the said properties and their names got entered in the panchayat records. It was alleged that defendants No.2 to 4 colluded together in order to deprive the plaintiff from the peaceful possession, got created false documents and they are claiming to have acquired rights in the said properties. Based on these pleadings, the suit was instituted. 4. On service of notice, defendants No.2 and 4 appeared through their counsel and defendant No.1 remained unrepresented despite service of summons. Suit against defendant No.3 was dismissed since no steps were taken by the plaintiff for effective service of summons. Defendant No.2 filed written statement and contended that the suit properties were bequeathed by the grandfather of the plaintiff in his favour through a registered Will dated 31.3.1954, marked as Ex.D4. It was contended that defendant No.1 had performed the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, behind the back of the defendant No.2, Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 got their names entered in the Panchayat records after the death of the said Prabhu. Defendant No.2 had taken care of Prabhu. It was contended that defendant No.1 had performed the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, behind the back of the defendant No.2, Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 got their names entered in the Panchayat records after the death of the said Prabhu. Defendant No.2 had taken care of Prabhu. It was further contended that he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit properties since last 20 years. Defendant No.4 has not filed any written statement. Based on these pleadings, the trial court framed the issues and after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit properties. Defendants No.2 and 4 were restrained by permanent injunction from obstructing the plaintiff in enjoying the suit properties in any manner. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.2 preferred Regular Appeal before the lower Appellate Court. In the appeal proceedings before the lower Appellate Court, defendant No.2 died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The lower Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the appeal, against which, this regular second appeal is preferred by defendant No.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the entire approach of the courts below was not proper. Both the courts below failed to consider the documents placed by the defendant, more particularly Ex.D4, the registered Will executed by Prabhu in favour of defendant No.2. Learned counsel submits that the reasons assigned by the courts below are against the pleadings. It is submitted that the Will, Ex.D4 was proved in accordance with law by examining the sons of attesting witnesses and the scribe, who have admitted the signature of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. The lower appellate court failed to re-appreciate the evidence, both oral and documentary, in its proper perspective. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is perverse, not in consonance with the material evidence placed on record. Accordingly, he seeks for setting aside the judgment and decree and to allow this appeal since the substantial question of law subsists for consideration. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the original propositus, Prabhu, had a son by name Rama, Rama’s wife was Yellawwa and defendant No.2 was the brother of the said Yellawwa. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the material on record, it emerges that the original propositus, Prabhu, had a son by name Rama, Rama’s wife was Yellawwa and defendant No.2 was the brother of the said Yellawwa. Rama died in the year 1950, Prabhu died in the year 1961 and Yellawwa died in the year 1968. It is the contention of defendant No.2 that the Will dated 31.3.1954 was executed by the said Prabhu in favour of him bequeathing the suit properties. Based on Ex.D4 – Will, defendant No.2 claimed his right and title over the suit properties. Plaintiffs’ case is that they being the grandchildren of Prabhu and their names having been entered in the Panchayat records, pertaining to the suit properties after the death of their mother Yellawwa, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in continuous possession and lawful possession of the suit properties, which is being disturbed by defendant No.2 to 4 by creating concocted documents. 7. The main issue was relating to proving of the Will dated 31.3.1954 said to have been executed by Prabhu in favour of defendant No.2. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the Judgment of this Court in the case of J.T. SURAPPA AND ANOTHER –V- SRI SATCHIDHANANDENDRA SARASWATHI SWAMIJI PUBLIC TRUST & OTHERS reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2115 wherein five steps required to be considered while proving the Will is laid down. The five steps are, under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, (‘Act’ for short) the Will to be valid, should be reduced into writing, signed by the testator and besides attested by two or more witnesses and atleast one attesting witness shall be examined. If these legal requirements are not found in the eye of law, there is no Will at all. Hence first of is that if the documents produced before the court prima facie do not satisfy this legal requirement, the Court need not make any further enquiry insofar as its due execution is concerned and can negative the claim based on the said document. The second step is that when legal representatives are disinherited, Court has to scrutinize the evidence with greater degree of care than usual. The third step would be to find out whether the testator was in sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will. The second step is that when legal representatives are disinherited, Court has to scrutinize the evidence with greater degree of care than usual. The third step would be to find out whether the testator was in sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will. The fourth step would be to find out whether there exists any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. The fifth step is to consider whether the Will that is executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Act r/w Section 68 of the Evidence Act. 8. The document, Ex.D4, if analyzed in terms of the parameters laid down by this Court, as stated supra, it is manifestly clear that the first step i.e., atleast examining one attesting witness not being satisfied, the Will cannot be approved as proved. Much emphasis is made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the sons of the scribe and attesting witnesses were examined to identify the signature of the scribe and the attesting witnesses in the Will Ex.D4. The examination of the sons of the scribe and the attesting witnesses would not prove the genuineness of the Will nor it is the criteria to be followed for proving the Will. The second step i.e., when the legal heirs are disinherited, greater degree of care to be taken by the court to scrutinize the Will. Defendant No.2 being the brother of daughter-in-law of Prabhu, admittedly the Will is disinherited against the grandchildren viz., plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thirdly, on appreciation of evidence, the Courts below have held that the testator was not in a sound state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will or in other words, the burden lies on the propounder of the Will to prove the same which was not discharged. It was the burden on defendant No.2 to prove that the testator of the Will was not in an unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. On the material evidence on record, both the courts have held that propositus, Prabhu was not in a sound mind at the time of execution of the Will. 9. It was the burden on defendant No.2 to prove that the testator of the Will was not in an unsound mind at the time of the execution of the Will. On the material evidence on record, both the courts have held that propositus, Prabhu was not in a sound mind at the time of execution of the Will. 9. Though the Will was dated 31.3.1954, it has not seen the light of the day until 1990 i.e., when the name of the defendant No.2 was entered in the Panchayat records for the first time, based on the alleged Will Exhibit D.4. The contents of the alleged Will is that the property should be enjoyed by his wife Yellawwa and thereafter, it should go to the hands of the defendant No.2. Admittedly, Yellawwa died in the year 1968. The Will was not acted upon for more than 22 years. The long gap of 22 years would create suspicion regarding the execution of the Will. No plausible cause was shown by defendant No.2 for not acting upon the Will for more than 22 years. It establishes the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. In these circumstances, both the courts held that defendant No.2 has failed to prove the Will in accordance with Sections 63 of the Act and 68 of the Evidence Act. The attestation and even execution of the Will is not proved in accordance with law. 10. Given the circumstances, there is neither infirmity or irregularity in appreciating the evidence nor the findings of the courts below is perverse or vitiated under any score. 11. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed.