JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellants, who are legal representatives of Shri Dhani Ram (since dead), the original plaintiff, (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 10.05.2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 1-S/13 of 2004, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree, dated 21.04.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 107/1 of 2002, dismissing the suit of the original plaintiff, Shri Dhani Ram, was partly allowed. 2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under: The original plaintiff maintained a suit seeking declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the defendant”) qua land comprising in Khata No. 60, Khatauni No. 135, Kitta 5, measuring 1-20-76 hectares, situated in Mauja Jaisi, Pargana Saraj, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, as depicted in jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and the land comprising in Khata No. 84, Khatauni No. 170 to 171, Khasra Kitta 11, measuring 0-54-14 hectares, situated in Mauja Bharara, Pargana Saraj, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla, as depiected in jamabandi for the year 12997-98 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”). As per the original plaintiff, his father, Shri Shibu and one Shri Burfia were real brothers living together in Village Jaishi, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla. The original plaintiff further contended that Shri Shibu and Shri Burfia were sons of Shri Sugru and co-owners of the suit land. After the death of Shri Shibu, the original plaintiff succeeded his half share and became co-owner in the suit land alongwith Shri Burfia. The original plaintiff has further contended that Shri Burfia was issueless and he was being looked after by him, so Shri Burfia executed a Will, dated 23.01.1990, bequeathing his property in favour of original plaintiff. Shri Burfia died on 27.07.2002 without any issue otherwise also the original plaintiff, being only legal heir, had succeeded the estate of Shri Burfia. As per the original plaintiff, as he alone succeeded the share of Shri Burfia, he is exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right and interest in the same. Shri Burfia died on 27.07.2002 without any issue otherwise also the original plaintiff, being only legal heir, had succeeded the estate of Shri Burfia. As per the original plaintiff, as he alone succeeded the share of Shri Burfia, he is exclusive owner-in-possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right and interest in the same. The original plaintiff further contended that the defendant was not related to Shri Burfia, so there was no occasion to execute any Will in his favour. As per the original plaintiff, Will dated 19.10.2000, as alleged by the defendant, is null and void. Shri Burfia was not physically capable to execute a Will on that date. The defendant cannot fetch any benefit under Will dated 19.10.2000. The cause of action arose in favour of the original plaintiff when the defendant on the basis of Will threatened to interfere in plaintiff’s exclusive possession over the suit land. Therefore, the original plaintiff, maintained a suit seeking a decree of declaration with consequential relief of injunction. 3. The defendant, by way of filing written statement, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiff. He raised preliminary objections, viz., cause of action, valuation, non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability, etc. On merits, the defendant admitted that Shri Shibu was father of the original plaintiff and Shri Burfia was real brother of Shri Shibu having lands in two revenue estates. He has further admitted that Shri Burfia had died. The defendant contended that Shri Shibu had settled in Village Bharara and Shri Burfia got settled in Village Jaishi and he himself was looking after his property there. As per the defendant, Village Jaishi is about four kilo meters from Village Bharara and the original plaintiff or his father did not visit village Jaishi. He has further averred that the plaintiff was suffering from paralysis for six-seven years and he was bed ridden and he was taken care by others. The plaintiff did not have any male issue, therefore, Shri Burfia executed a due and valid Will, dated 19.10.2000, in favour of the defendant, just to look after the plaintiff properly and after his death his final rites could be performed. As per the defendant, Shri Burfia has given possession of land in Village Jaishi prior to his death. He has succeeded the estate of Shri Burfia, as per the Will. As per the defendant, Shri Burfia has given possession of land in Village Jaishi prior to his death. He has succeeded the estate of Shri Burfia, as per the Will. The defendant refuted and denied other allegations of the original plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The learned Trial Court on 26.04.2003 the following issues for determination and adjudication: “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction if so what is correct valuation? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 6. Relief.” 5. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 against the original plaintiff and issues No. 3 to 5 against the defendants, the suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, who are appellants herein, preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was partly allowed, vide impugned judgment dated 10.05.2007, hence the present regular second appeal, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether Will Exhibit DW-4/A, dated 23.01.90 set up by respondent is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same is not legal and valid? 2. Whether Will Exhibit DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000 has not been prepared according to the prescribed procedure in as much as that the same was not prepared with the consent and knowledge of the deceased Shri Burfia and it was not executed nor signed by him in the presence of marginal witnesses nor they put their signatures on it in the presence of late Shri Burfia. 3. Whether Exhibit DW-2/A is rendered invalid and unlawful on account of active participation of respondent? 4. Whether the findings as recorded by learned trial court as well as by learned lower Lower Appellate Court to the extent same are against appellants are vitiated on account of mis-reading, misconstruction and mis-interpretation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record? 5. 4. Whether the findings as recorded by learned trial court as well as by learned lower Lower Appellate Court to the extent same are against appellants are vitiated on account of mis-reading, misconstruction and mis-interpretation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record? 5. Whether alleged Will Exhibit DW-2/A has not been prepared at the instance of deceased Shri Burfia Ram and the marginal witnesses being interested persons cannot be relied upon and therefore, alleged Will is not legal and valid especially when there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. 6. Whether Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the grounds of appeal which were set up and urged and thus, jurisdiction has not been exercised by him in accordance with law?” 6. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 7. At the very outset this Court finds that substantial question No. 1 is required to be reframed. Thus, on the basis of the pleadings the same is reframed as under: “1. Whether Will Exhibit DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000, set up by the respondents is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same is not legal and valid?” 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the judgments passed by the learned Courts below are against law and the same are required to be set aside and the appeal of the appellants is required to be allowed in totality. He has further argued that there was no occasion for Shri Burfia (testator) to execute a Will in favour of the respondent (defendant). In contrast to what has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the Will was validly executed by Shri Burfia in favour of the defendant (respondent herein) for the simple reason that the original plaintiff, Shri Dhani Ram, who was to lookafter Shri Burfia, in whose favour earlier Shri Burfia executed a Will, remained himself paralytic for many years and he was not having any male child to lookafter him or Shri Burfia. Therefore, Shri Burfia executed a Will in favour of the original plaintiff to lookafter Shri Burfia and to perform his last rites. Therefore, Shri Burfia executed a Will in favour of the original plaintiff to lookafter Shri Burfia and to perform his last rites. In rebuttal, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances and as settled by Hon’ble Courts, such Will is required to be declared null and void. To support his arguments, the learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and others, (1990) 1 SCC 266 ; 2. Sea Lark Fisheries vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2008) 4 SCC 131 ; 3. Bharpur Singh & others vs. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 ; 4. S.R. Srinivasa & others vs. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 ; 5. Ramrameshwari Devi & others vs. Nirmala Devi & others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 ; 6. A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshstriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, represented by its President, & others, (2012) 6 SCC 430 ; and 7. M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by Lrs vs. K.M. Veeraje URS (Dead) by LRs & others, (2013) 7 SCC 490 . 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties I have gone through the record carefully. 10. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.04.2004 carved out following undisputed facts and this Court also finds that these are still undisputed facts: “1. Shibu, the plaintiff’s father and Burfia were real brothers and were co-owners in joint possession of the suit land. Each of them was having half share in it and this is evident from copies of jamabandies Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. PW-1/C, Ex. DW-1/C and Ex. DW-1/C and Ex. DW-1/E. 2. It is also an admitted fact that Burfia was not having an issue. And though he was an old man, yet he was hale and hearty and remained active during his lifetime till death. He remained active and used to visit his relatives till death. This is evident from the cross- examination of PW-1 Smt. Khemawati, daughter-cum-general power of attorney of plaintiff as well of PW-5 Parmanand. 3. It is also an admitted fact that Burfia died issueless on 27.07.2002 without leaving any issue and the death certificate is Ex. DW-1/F. 11. He remained active and used to visit his relatives till death. This is evident from the cross- examination of PW-1 Smt. Khemawati, daughter-cum-general power of attorney of plaintiff as well of PW-5 Parmanand. 3. It is also an admitted fact that Burfia died issueless on 27.07.2002 without leaving any issue and the death certificate is Ex. DW-1/F. 11. Smt. Khemawati (PW-1) deposed that Shri Dhani Ram (the original plaintiff) was her father and he was ill from the year 2001 and Shri Burfia, who was real uncle of Shri Dhani Ram, was not having any child, so, as a matter of caution, Shri Burfia executed a will in favour of her father, though otherwise also her father would have inherited his estate in a natural course and the Will executed in her father’s favour in the year 1990 was his last Will. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that Shri Burfia was living in another village and he was hale and hearty, but she further stated that he used to remain puzzled. She has shown ignorance to the fact that grand father of his father and the grand father of the defendant were real brothers. This witness has admitted that her father was ill. In these circumstances, the Court has a reason to believe that Shri Burfia was interested in his welfare in his old age and that is why earlier he executed a Will in favour of the father of PW-1, but when the father of PW-1 was having no male issue and he fell ill, Shri Burfia executed a fresh Will in favour of the defendant. 12. Shri Satya Parkash (PW-2) has only produced the record of the Panchayat. Shri Ganga Ram (PW-3) has deposed that Shri Dhani Ram was owner-in-possession of the land and Shri Burfia executed a Will in favour of Shri Dhani Ram in the year 1990. This witness in his cross-examination could not tell khasra No. of the land, but he has admitted that Shri Dhani Ram was ill for 2-3 years. Shri Hem Singh (PW-4) has proved the registration of the Will dated 23.01.1990 in favour of Shri Dhani Ram. Shri Parma Nand (PW-5) has deposed that he know the parties. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that Shri Dhani Ram was ill for the last 2-3 years and was suffering from paralysis and unable to walk. Shri Hem Singh (PW-4) has proved the registration of the Will dated 23.01.1990 in favour of Shri Dhani Ram. Shri Parma Nand (PW-5) has deposed that he know the parties. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that Shri Dhani Ram was ill for the last 2-3 years and was suffering from paralysis and unable to walk. On the other hand, defendant himself stepped into the witness-box as DW-1 and he has deposed that Shri Burfia got a Will executed in his favour after cancelling his earlier Will for the reason that Shri Dhani Ram (the original plaintiff) was unable to lookafter him due to his illness. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that Shri Dhani Ram etc. are not allowing him to take possession of the land. Shri Mushu Ram (DW-2) is a witness to the Will dated 19.10.2000, Ex. DW-2/A. He has deposed that the Will was executed by Shri Burfia in a sound state of mind and in presence of the witnesses. He has further deposed that Shri Burfia signed the Will after understanding the same. The statements of DWs, 3, 4 and 5, i.e., Shri Bhagat Ram, Shri Sewa Dutt and Shri Hem Singh, respectively, have proved the registration of the Will in presence of the Registrar. From this evidence, which has come on record, it is crystal clear that Shri Burfia was all alone and he neither had wife nor any issue. In fact, he was in need of someone to look after him in his old age, therefore, he executed a Will in favour of the original plaintiff, but he himself was paralytic and was confined to bed, so he again executed a Will in favour of the defendant. The execution of a Will in favour of the defendant draws support from the fact that the plaintiff himself was confined to bed. 13. The plaintiff did not examine any marginal witness to prove the veracity and authenticity of the Will, Ex. PW-4/A, dated 23.1.1990, and it is beaten law of the land that to establish execution and attestation of Will, at least one marginal witness, who is alive and is subject to jurisdiction of the Court, has to be examined. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Will dated 23.01.1990 in his favour. PW-4/A, dated 23.1.1990, and it is beaten law of the land that to establish execution and attestation of Will, at least one marginal witness, who is alive and is subject to jurisdiction of the Court, has to be examined. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Will dated 23.01.1990 in his favour. The next leaf of the plea of the plaintiff is that he has succeeded the estate of Shri Burfia under the law of succession, as he was his nephew. On an overall examination of the material on record, it is unearthed that this question of natural succession came into picture only when Will, dated 19.10.2000, executed in favour of the defendant is not proved. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the defendant to prove Will, dated 19.10.2000, and for this purpose he has placed on record Will, dated 19.10.2000, Ex. DW-2/A. 14. Shri Bhagat Ram (DW-3), Document Writer, scribed the Will dated 19.10.2000. He specifically deposed that he, at the instance of Shri Burfia, scribed the Will as well as the cancellation deed and marginal witnesses were also present there. He further deposed that he read the Will and the cancellation deed to Shri Burfia and he also admitted the correctness of the same, thereafter he put his thumb impression on the documents that too in presence of the witnesses. As per this witness, Shri Burfia was mentally fit at that relevant time. Shri Mushu Ram and Shri Sewa Dutt, DW-2 and DW-4, respectively, who are the marginal witnesses, have deposed in the same manner. Both these witnesses have specifically deposed that the Will and the cancellation deed were written by DW-3 (Shri Bhagat Ram) and the same were explained to Shri Burfia by Shri Bhagat Ram, who put his thumb impression on the documents in their presence. As per the versions of these witnesses, Shri Burfia was at that relevant time was mentally and physically fit. Shri Bhagat Ram (DW-3), Scribe, has further deposed that the testator and the marginal witnesses put their thumb mark/signatures on Will, Ex. DW-2/A, in each others’ presence. Thus, manifestly, the execution, attestation and recitals of Will, Ex. DW-2/A, stands fully proved. Further it is specifically written in the Will that testator, i.e., Shri Burfia, was hale and hearty and in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. DW-2/A, in each others’ presence. Thus, manifestly, the execution, attestation and recitals of Will, Ex. DW-2/A, stands fully proved. Further it is specifically written in the Will that testator, i.e., Shri Burfia, was hale and hearty and in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. PWs 1 and 5, i.e., Smt. Khemawati and Shri Parma Nand, respectively, have also admitted this fact. 15. Shri Burfia executed the earlier Will in a hope that the plaintiff would perform his final rites after his death. In the cancellation deed, Ex. DW-2/B, Shri Burfia (testator) specifically mentioned that he is revoking his earlier Will, which was made in favour of the plaintiff, as Shri Dhani Ram (the original plaintiff) is suffering from paralysis for the last one year and he is unable to maintain him and his property. As the cancellation deed was written on 19.10.200, so the plaintiff could have suffered paralysis during October, 1999. This fact also stands substantiated and proved by PW-1, Smt. Khemawati, and PW-5, Shri Parma Nand, who have deposed that plaintiff is confined to bed for the last two to two and half years. The statements of PW-1 and PW-5 were recorded on 14.08.2003 and the same closely correspond with the period, so mentioned in the cancellation deed, Ex. DW-2/B. 16. Noticeably, the plaintiff was ill and confined to bed and he could not even participate the funeral of Burfia. In fact, Shri Burfia wanted that after his death his last rites should be performed by the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff was not in a position to perform the last rites of Shri Burfia due to his illness, therefore, earlier Will, so executed by Shri Burfia, was cancelled. Shri Burfia, throughout his life, remained hale and hearty. In fact, there existed a valid and plausible reason for Shri Burfia to cancel his earlier Will, executed in favour of the original plaintiff. The distance between the houses of Shri Burfia and defendant was only 100 meters and Shri Burfia died in the defendant’s house and he performed his last rites. The available evidence clearly demonstrates that Shri Burfia executed his last Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000, in favour of the defendant and the same is not shrouded with suspicious circumstances, as the recitals made therein stand convincingly proved. The available evidence clearly demonstrates that Shri Burfia executed his last Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000, in favour of the defendant and the same is not shrouded with suspicious circumstances, as the recitals made therein stand convincingly proved. The presence of beneficiary, i.e., the defendant, at the time of execution of Will in his favour by the testator does not mar the veracity and authenticity of the Will and thus, it cannot be termed as suspicious circumstance, as no other evidence has come on record, which could proved ancillary circumstances influencing the testator. The minor contradictions and discrepancies do not affect the authenticity and genuineness of the Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000. As per the Will (Ex. DW-2/A) defendant succeeded half share of Shri Burfia in the suit land, so he stepped into his shoes and thus he became cosharer with the plaintiff. 17. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and others, (1990) 1 SCC 266 , wherein it has been held that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. Relevant para of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “20. It has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that a will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The' executant of the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order or judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. In order or judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. it would be also open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities; of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party.” The learned Counsel for the defendant has argued that the facts of the present case and the evidence produced by the defendant clearly show that Shri Burfia executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant in sound disposing mind and the Will was signed by the witnesses and testator in each others’ presence. Shri Burfia was of sound disposing mind and he executed the Will on 19.10.2000 for the reason that Shri Dhani Ram (the original plaintiff) was unable to look after him. Shri Dhani Ram was not having male issue, who could have looked after Shri Burfia. In these circumstances, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sea Lark Fisheries vs. United India Insurance Company and another, (2008) 4 SCC 131 , wherein it has been held that the where plea is not raised in the plaint, the Court cannot accept it. Apt para of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “11. The submission of the learned counsel that the appellant was not allowed to furnish information cannot be accepted as such a plea was not raised in the plaint.” In the present case, the defendant has raised all the pleas in his written statement, therefore, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. In Bharpur Singh & others vs. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. The legal principles in regard to proof of a will are no longer res integra. 19. In Bharpur Singh & others vs. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. The legal principles in regard to proof of a will are no longer res integra. A will must be proved having regard to the provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in terms whereof the propounder of a will must prove its execution by examining one or more attesting witnesses. Where, however, the validity of the Will is challenged on the ground of fraud, coercion or undue influence, the burden of proof would be on the caveator. In a case where the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, it would not be treated as the last testamentary disposition of the testator. 15. This Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma [ AIR 1959 SC 443 ] opined that the fact that the propounder took interest in execution of the Will is one of the factors which should be taken into consideration for determination of due execution of the Will. It was also held that one of the important features which distinguishes Will from other documents is that the Will speaks from the date of death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. 16. 16. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , it was also held that the propounder of will must prove: (i) that the Will was signed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind duly understanding the nature and effect of disposition and he put his signature on the document of his own free will, and (ii) when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder, and (iii) If a Will is challenged as surrounded by suspicious circumstances, all such legitimate doubts have to be removed by cogent, satisfactory and sufficient evidence to dispel suspicion. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts indicated therein. It was moreover held:- "20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter." … … … … … … 24. The circumstances narrated hereinbefore are not exhaustive. Subject to offer of reasonable explanation, existence thereof must be taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at a finding as to whether the execution of the Will had duly been proved or not. It may be true that the Will was a registered one, but the same by itself would not mean that the statutory requirements of proving the Will need not be complied with.” In the case in hand the testator, i.e., Shri Burfia, certainly took interest in executing Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000 in favour of the defendant and he also annulled his earlier Will, through a cancellation deed, executed in favour of the original plaintiff, therefore, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 20. In S.R. Srinivasa & others vs. S. Padmavathamma, (2010) 5 SCC 274 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will have to be explained. Apposite para of the judgment (supra) is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “57. Since there were suspicious circumstances, it was necessary for the defendants to explain the same. The registration of the Will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion. The first appellate court also notices that even in cases where the execution of the Will is admitted, at least one attesting witness of the Will has to be examined to receive the Will in evidence. DW2, who has been examined is the scribe of the Will, has given no plausible reasons as to why the Will was presented twice before the Sub Registrar for registration. DW2, who has been examined is the scribe of the Will, has given no plausible reasons as to why the Will was presented twice before the Sub Registrar for registration. Nor is it stated by this witness as to why the Will was not registered on the first occasion.” Applying the above law, it is clear that the defendant as proved the execution of the Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000, in his favour by Shri Burfia, as per the law and there is no suspicious circumstance surrounding the same, so the judgment (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. In Ramrameshwari Devi & others vs. Nirmala Devi & others, (2011) 8 SCC 249 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while framing issues in civil litigation the Courts must proceed with due care, caution, diligence and attention. Apposite para of the judgment (supra) is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “41. Framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the court that due care, caution diligence and attention must be bestowed by the learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues.” However, in the case in hand, all the necessary issues were framed by the learned Trial Court, so the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 22. In A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshstriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam, represented by its President, & others, (2012) 6 SCC 430 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. It has also been held that pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that pleadings are the foundation of litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. Relevant paras of the judgment (supra) are extracted hereunder: “26. As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the pleadings are foundation of litigation but experience reveals that sufficient attention is not paid to the pleadings and documents by the judicial officers before dealing with the case. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy themselves as to the correctness and the authenticity of the matter pleaded. 27. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the parties to investigate and satisfy themselves as to the correctness and the authenticity of the matter pleaded. 27. The pleadings must set-forth sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward a false or exaggerated claim or defence. The pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility. If false averments, evasive denials or false denials are introduced, then the Court must carefully look into it while deciding a case and insist that those who approach the Court must approach it with clean hands. … … … … … … 43.2 Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts.” As the defendant has pleaded his case in the written statement, so filed by him before the learned Trial Court, and he has proved the execution of Will, Ex. DW-2/A, in his favour beyond all probabilities and suspicions, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 23. In M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by LRs vs. K.M. Veeraje URS (Dead) by LRs & others, (2013) 7 SCC 490 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the rights of parties, necessarily raises a question of law. Relevant para of the judgment (supra) is as under: “16. We may, however, note in this behalf that as held by a Constitution bench of this Court in Chunilal Mehta Vs. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company, 1962 AIR(SC) 1314, it is well settled that the construction of a document of title or of a document which is the foundation of the rights of parties, necessarily raises a question of law. That apart, as held by a bench of three judges in Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari, 2001 3 SCC 179 , whether a particular question is a substantial question of law or not, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the execution of the will of Smt. Nagammanni and construction thereof was the subject matter of consideration, the framing of the question of law cannot be faulted. Recently, in Union of India Vs. When the execution of the will of Smt. Nagammanni and construction thereof was the subject matter of consideration, the framing of the question of law cannot be faulted. Recently, in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, 2012 8 SCC 148 , this Court referred to various previous judgments in this behalf and clarified the legal position in the following words:- "67. There is no prohibition to entertain a second appeal even on question of fact, provided the Court is satisfied that the findings of the courts below were vitiated by non-consideration of relevant evidence or by showing erroneous approach to the matter and findings recorded in the court below are perverse.". After considering the judgment (supra), it is clear that the Will, which was executed in favour of the defendant was proved by the defendant beyond all suspicions and further, as discussed hereinabove, the First Appellate Court below has also rightly concluded that Shri Burfia executed Will, Ex. DW-2/A, in sound disposing mind, as Shri Dhani Ram (the original plaintiff) was unable to maintain Shri Burfia and the original plaintiff was confined to bed due to paralysis. Therefore, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the substantial question of law No.1, as reframed in earlier part of the judgment, is answered holding that Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000 is not shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same is legally tenable and valid. Substantial question of law No. 2 is answered holding that Will, Ex. DW-2/A, dated 19.10.2000 was prepared and executed by Shri Burfia in sound and disposing mind. 25. Will, Ex. DW-2/A, has not become invalid and unlawful on account of participation of beneficiary thereof, i.e., the defendant. The testator executed the Will in sound disposing mind knowing fully well that it is the defendant who can look after him and the original plaintiff (Shri Dhani Ram) was suffering from paralysis and he was unable to lookafter Shri Burfia (testator), therefore, substantial question of law No. 3 is answered accordingly. The testator executed the Will in sound disposing mind knowing fully well that it is the defendant who can look after him and the original plaintiff (Shri Dhani Ram) was suffering from paralysis and he was unable to lookafter Shri Burfia (testator), therefore, substantial question of law No. 3 is answered accordingly. Substantial question of law No. 4 is answered holding that the findings, as recorded by the learned Courts below, are not the result of mis-reading, mis-construction and misinterpretation of oral and documentary evidence and the findings have been recorded after properly appreciating the evidence to its true and correct perspective, therefore, the findings cannot be said to be perverse. 26. Substantial question of law No. 5 is answered holding that Will, Ex. DW-2/A, was, in fact, executed by Shri Burfia in sound disposing mind. Lastly, substantial question of law No. 6 is answered holding that the learned Lower Appellate Court has dealt with the appeal, so filed by the plaintiffs (LRs of the original plaintiff), properly, therefore, no interference by the hands of this Court is required. 27. The net result of the above discussion is that the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, taking into consideration the relationship of the parties and their status and other peculiar facts, which have come on record, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 28. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of.