JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment, dated 01.09.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla in Probate Petition No. RBT-3-S/2 of 2014/11, vide which, learned Court below has dismissed the Probate Petition so filed by the present appellant. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) filed a Probate Petition for probate of Will dated July 1984 executed by his mother late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna, widow of late Sh. Badri Nath Khanna in favour of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, his mother late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna died on 30.03.2011. In her lifetime, she had executed her last will in the month of July, 1984, which was duly registered by her in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla on 26.06.1985. By virtue of the said Will, late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had bequeathed her entire immovable and movable properties and other tangible assets left by her at the time of her death in favour of the petitioner, who was to hold the said property in his capacity as an absolute owner thereof. It was further mentioned in the petition that at the time of her death, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was residing with the petitioner at Lower Bazaar Shimla. It was further stated in the petition that the Will was executed by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna in a sound state of mind out of her own desire and without any pressure. Present respondents, who were impleaded as respondents No. 2 and 3 in the Probate Petition and who happen to be the real sisters of the petitioner and daughters of deceased Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna, were stated in the petition not to be entitled to the immovable as well as movable properties of lat Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. 3. As per records, respondent Smt. Anita Khanna was proceeded against ex parte, as she did not appear before the learned Court below, whereas probate petition was contested by respondent No. 4. In her reply filed to the petition, the stand taken by respondent No. 2 inter alia was that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not only petitioner’s mother, but she was also the mother of replying respondent as well as respondent No. 3, which fact had been concealed by the petitioner. In her reply filed to the petition, the stand taken by respondent No. 2 inter alia was that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not only petitioner’s mother, but she was also the mother of replying respondent as well as respondent No. 3, which fact had been concealed by the petitioner. It was further mentioned in the petition that no Will was ever prepared by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna during her life time in the month of July, 1984. As per the replying respondent, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna during her life time used to visit the replying respondent occasionally and also used to stay with respondent No. 3 and she never disclosed about the execution of the Will in favour of the petitioner. It was specifically mentioned in the reply that no Will was ever prepared by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna during her life time in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner had prepared a false Will and was trying to grab the property of late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna on the strength of the said forged and fabricated document, which was prepared by the petitioner to deprive the replying respondent and respondent No. 3 of their legitimate right. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 16.08.2012: “1. Whether the applicant is entitled for probate of Will dated July 1984 executed by his mother late Smt. Ram Chameli, S/o late Sh. Badri Nath, as alleged? OPA 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-2 3. Whether the applicant has no cause of action to file the petition, as alleged? OPR-2 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to dispose of the present petition, as alleged? OPR-2. 5. Relief. 6. On the basis of evidence adduced by the respective parties in support of their respective claims, the following findings were returned by learned trial Court on the issues so framed: “Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: The petition is dismissed as per operative part of judgment.” 7. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined five witnesses. Respondent No. 2 did not enter the witness box, however, her son, namely, Satyam Taneja deposed in the Court as RW-1. No other witness was examined by respondent No. 2. 8. PW-1 Sh. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined five witnesses. Respondent No. 2 did not enter the witness box, however, her son, namely, Satyam Taneja deposed in the Court as RW-1. No other witness was examined by respondent No. 2. 8. PW-1 Sh. Madan Lal Gupta deposed in the Court that he was a retired Government servant and he knew the deceased parents of the petitioner. He further stated in the Court that in July 1984, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had executed a Will in his presence, which was also signed by the testator in his presence. He further deposed that he had seen the Will, Ex. PW1/A, on which he had appended his signatures as a witness. This witness deposed in Court that the mother of the petitioner had appended her signatures on Will Ex. PW1/A in his presence. He also deposed that at the time of execution of the Will, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was in a sound state of mind. He further deposed that firstly the Will was read over and explained to Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna by Sh. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, contents of which were acknowledged to be correct by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna in front of him. He also deposed that the Will was also signed by the other witness, namely, Sh. Mast Ram Sharma. He further stated in the Court that he knew Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna on account of his acquaintance with Shri Badri Nath Khanna, who was having a clothes shop in Lower Bazaar. He also deposed that he used to purchase clothes from the shop of Sh. Badri Nath Khanna, where after they had developed good relations with each other. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he could not state as to on which particular date the Will was prepared. He after perusing the Will stated that the same was prepared in July 1984. In his cross-examination, he stated that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had one son and two daughters, however, she had bequeathed her property in the name of Sh. Jeewan Lal only. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the Will was prepared in the office of the Advocate in Lower Bazaar. He also deposed that he was called for the purpose of execution of the Will by Mr. Khanna. Jeewan Lal only. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the Will was prepared in the office of the Advocate in Lower Bazaar. He also deposed that he was called for the purpose of execution of the Will by Mr. Khanna. In his cross-examination, he also stated that he was not aware as to who typed the Will and thereafter stated that it might have been typed by the Clerk. He also stated that he had read the Will, which was scribed in English. He denied that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not present in the office of the lawyer. He also denied that the Will was not read over to Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna in vernacular. He also deposed that he did not knew the other witness and that he was informed that the other witness was employed in Deputy Commissioner’s office. In his cross-examination, this witness also stated that when the Will was executed, Jeewan Khanna was present in the office of the lawyer. He denied the suggestion that the Will was a forged document prepared by Jeewan Khanna in connivance with the said witness. 9. PW-2 Sh. Yash Pal Sharma deposed in the Court that Mast Ram Sharma was his father, who had died on 18.11.1990. He also stated that his father was serving in Deputy Commissioner’s office. He also stated that Will Ex. PW1/A contained the signatures of his father, which he identified. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not knew Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna and Badri Nath. He also stated that he was not aware where his father has appended signatures on the Will. He also stated that he did not knew as to whether his father knew either Sh. Madan Lal Gupta or Shri Ajay Kumar, Advocate. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing at the behest of petitioner. 10. PW-3 Smt. Leela Sandal deposed in the Court that she had brought the requisite record from the office of Sub Registrar (Rural), Shimla, as per which, Will Ex. PW1/A of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna, widow of late Sh. Badri Nath Khanna, was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar and the registration number of the same was 58. She also deposed that the Will was registered on 26.06.1985. PW1/A of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna, widow of late Sh. Badri Nath Khanna, was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar and the registration number of the same was 58. She also deposed that the Will was registered on 26.06.1985. In her cross-examination, this witness deposed that she was serving in the Department since September, 2009 and she was not aware as to who had scribed the Will Ex. PW3/A. 11. Jeewan Khanna, i.e., the petitioner entered the witness box as PW-4. He deposed in the Court that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was his mother, who died on 30.03.2011 in Shimla in his house. He further stated that before her death, his mother was unwell and he used to look after his mother. He also deposed that in July, 1984, his mother executed a Will, as per which, she had bequeathed her moveable as well as immoveable property in his favour. He further stated that the Will was executed by his mother without any pressure. He also stated that at the time of execution of the Will, the age of his mother was around 55 years and she was in a sound mental state. He also deposed that thereafter, his mother had got the Will registered on 26.06.1985 in the office of Registrar. He also stated that his sisters had neither any right nor any claim on the moveable and immoveable assets of his deceased mother. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that the Will was not prepared in his presence. He also stated that the Will was handed over to him by his mother about 15-20 years ago. He admitted the suggestion that the date of the execution of the Will was not mentioned in the same. He denied the suggestion that the Will was not executed by his mother. He admitted the suggestion that his mother was having three children and there was no reference of the other two children in the Will. He denied the suggestion that in the Probate Petition filed by him, there was no mention of the daughters of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. He also denied the suggestion that the signatures of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna at circles “C, D and E” in Ex. PW1/A were not matching with each other. He further stated that his mother was matriculate. He denied the suggestion that in the Probate Petition filed by him, there was no mention of the daughters of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. He also denied the suggestion that the signatures of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna at circles “C, D and E” in Ex. PW1/A were not matching with each other. He further stated that his mother was matriculate. He also denied the suggestion that the Will was a forged document prepared by him. 12. Sh. Ajay Kumar, the Scribe of the Will entered into the witness box as PW-5. His deposition is being reproduced here-in-below: “Stated that late Sh. Badri Nath Khanna, S/o Sh. Bhola Nath and his wife Smt. Ram Chameli were my clients. Sh. Badri Nath Khanna got his own will drafted from me on 5th June, 1984, copy of which is Ex. PW5/A (Original seen and returned). The will the original of which has been brought by the petitioner today and copy of which is Exhibit PW5/A was executed in my office. My signatures are in Mark A. The note in Mark-A on Ex. PW5/A is also in my hand. Smt. Ram Chameli W/o Sh. Badri Nath also got her will drafted fro me. Copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. I have today seen the original will and identify my signature on Ex. PW1/A in evidence. The will was drafted as per instruction of Smt. Ram Chameli and was signed by the witness in my office in Lower Bazaar Shimla. Ram Chameli and witness signed the original will, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A in my presence. The executant Smt. Ram Chameli was in sound disposing mind when she executed the original of Ex. PW1/A XXXX XXX XXX Sh. Badri Nath was my client since 1976. It is correct that date of drafting the will is not mentioned Ex. PW1/A. Self stated that the will was typed in the month of July, 1984. The witnesses were not there and I told them to come alongnwith witnesses and I appended the note thereon, as far I am remembering the facts, the date was not mentioned inadvertently. It is incorrect that Ram Chameli never visited my office for will Ex. PW1/A. It is incorrect that Ex. PW1/A prepared by me at instance of Badri Nath Khanna. I do not keep the record of documents drafted by me in my office. It is correct that will Ex. It is incorrect that Ram Chameli never visited my office for will Ex. PW1/A. It is incorrect that Ex. PW1/A prepared by me at instance of Badri Nath Khanna. I do not keep the record of documents drafted by me in my office. It is correct that will Ex. PW1/A typed on typewriter. It is correct that endorsement ‘C’ Ex. PW1/A of endorsement ‘A’ in Ex. PW5/A are in my own handwriting. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely.” 13. As I have already mentioned above, respondent No. 2 did not enter the witness box. On behalf of the said respondent, her son, namely, Sh. Satyam Taneja entered the witness box as RW-1. In his affidavit so filed by way of evidence, he stated to be the attorney of his mother Smt. Asha Taneja, who on account of her ill health, was not able to travel Shimla. This witness further mentioned in the affidavit that late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna and late Sh. Badri Nath Khanna were his maternal grand parents and Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna died on 30.03.2011. He further mentioned in the affidavit that Sh. Jeewan Khanna and Smt. Anita Khanna were his maternal uncle and maternal aunt, respectively. As per the said witness, his maternal grand mother, during her lifetime used to visit them and they also used to visit her at Shimla. It is further mentioned in his affidavit that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna never informed PW-2 or PW-3 that she had executed Will Ex. PW1/A. As per this witness, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had not prepared any Will and Ex. PW1/A produced by Jeewan Khanna was nothing but a forged Will so as to deprive the legal heirs of late Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna of their right in property. It further stood mentioned in the affidavit that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not conversant with English and she only used to sign in Hindi. Will Ex. PW1/A did not bear the signatures of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. It was also mentioned in his affidavit that he had seen Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna writing and signatures on the Will were not that of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. He also stated that a Civil Suit qua the property owned and possessed by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was pending in the High Court of Delhi. It was also mentioned in his affidavit that he had seen Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna writing and signatures on the Will were not that of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. He also stated that a Civil Suit qua the property owned and possessed by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was pending in the High Court of Delhi. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his mother had retired from BHEL as a Chief Medical Officer. He also stated that the doctor, who had issued the certificate in favour of his mother that she could not travel to Shimla was not cited as a witness. He admitted the suggestion that he had not brought any medical record of his mother. He also stated in his cross-examination that Dr. A.K. Singh, who had issued medical certificate Ex. RW1/C had remained senior of his mother. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 to the Probate Petition was not under his signatures. He also stated in his cross-examination that his maternal grand mother had died at Shimla. He further stated that his maternal grand father had a clothes shop at Shimla, which was thereafter being looked after by his maternal uncle, i.e., the petitioner. He stated that he was not aware that in the eviction proceedings, which stood initiated against his maternal grand father by the landlord, Sh. Ajay Kumar Sood was the lawyer of his maternal grand father. He also stated that his maternal grand parents used to reside in Lower Bazaar, but he could not tell the address, though he did remember the location. He admitted the suggestion that his maternal grand mother had not informed him that she had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. He also admitted it to be correct that they had in fact never asked Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna in this regard. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware that the Ration Card of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was of Shimla. He admitted the suggestion that the name of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not entered either in Ration Card or Voter list at Haridwar, whereas as per the said witness, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna used to live with them occasionally. He admitted the suggestion that the name of Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna was not entered either in Ration Card or Voter list at Haridwar, whereas as per the said witness, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna used to live with them occasionally. He admitted the suggestion that he met his maternal grand mother for the last time in the year 2009, when she was in a sound state of mind. He further stated that he was not aware whether the death of his maternal grand mother took place at her residence in Lower Bazaar, where she used to reside with the deponent. He also stated that after the death of his maternal grand mother, his mother and younger brother used to come to Shimla. He admitted it to be correct that he had nothing to prove that during the illness of his maternal grand mother, his mother and his maternal aunt used to look after her. He stated in his cross-examination that letters used to be exchanged between him and his maternal grand mother. He stated that he could not produce in Court any document written by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna. He further stated that when Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna used to visit them at Haridwar, she had not appended her signatures on any document. He also stated that he had never seen his maternal grand mother appending any signatures. He stated that he had seen the signatures of his maternal grand mother on the letters, which were at his house, but he had not brought any such letter. He further stated in his cross-examination that in the year 1984, he was seven years old and was a student of second class. He stated that he was not aware that in July 1984, his maternal grand mother had executed Will Ex. PW1/A. He admitted the suggestion that Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had not executed any Will in favour of her daughters, though he denied the execution of Ex. PW1/A by Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna in favour of the petitioner. 14. Above is the respective ocular evidence led by both the parties in support of their contentions. 15. Learned Court below vide judgment under challenge, dismissed the Probate Petition by inter alia holding that the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the petitioner had not been able to dispel the said suspicious circumstances. 16. 14. Above is the respective ocular evidence led by both the parties in support of their contentions. 15. Learned Court below vide judgment under challenge, dismissed the Probate Petition by inter alia holding that the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the petitioner had not been able to dispel the said suspicious circumstances. 16. A perusal of the judgment under challenge demonstrates that learned Court below while dismissing the appeal inter alia held that the Will in issue was clouded with suspicions, which created doubts over the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. Learned trial Court held that there were two Wills appearing on record. First Will was executed by Sh. Badri in favour of petitioner dated 05.06.1984 and second Will, which stood executed without mention of any date was executed in the month of July 1984. It further held that both Wills, i.e., Will dated 05.06.1984 and the impugned Will were identical and there were over writings in the impugned Will. Learned trial Court also held that there was no clear cut date regarding the execution of the Will. It further held that scribe of the Will (PW-5) deposed that the Will was scribed in the months of July 1984 and the witnesses were present. PW-5 further stated that he asked the propounder to come along with witnesses, meaning thereby, the Will was merely drafted by the Scribe, but it was not executed before him. Learned trial Court also held that as per attesting witness (PW-1), the Will was executed in the office of Scribe and he had also stated that the propounder was present in his office. Learned trial Court also held that propounder of the Will, on the other hand, had stated that he was not present at the time when the Will was executed. Learned trial Court further held that attesting witness (PW-1) had stated that the Will was read over and explained by Scribe to the testator, whereas as per the Scribe, witness were not present at the time of drafting of the Will and he had also denied that testator was present in his office. Learned trial Court also held that there was overwriting at 3-4 places and there were no signatures of the testator to the verification. Learned trial Court also held that there was overwriting at 3-4 places and there were no signatures of the testator to the verification. It further held that no date appeared in the Will and neither PW-1 nor PW-5 had revealed about the date, though PW-5 had mentioned that the date was not mentioned inadvertently. On these basis, it was held by the learned trial Court that though the Will was a registered document, yet the propounder had miserably failed to prove that the Will was surrounded by any suspicious circumstances and, therefore, the Will could not be said to be a fair document, as there were suspicions raised over its execution. Learned trial Court also held that one more suspicious circumstance was that both respondents No. 2 and 3 being real sisters of the propounder were pleaded in the petition as in near relation of the deceased in para 4 of the petition and on these basis, learned trial Court went on to dismiss the petition. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgments as well as the records of the case. 18. In my considered view, the findings so recorded by the learned Court below are perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Court below in fact has completely misread the statement of Scribe (PW-5) and it has also not read the statement of attesting witness (PW-1) in its correct perspective. Learned trial Court in fact had culled out suspicious circumstances where none existed. Learned trial Court has also not appreciated as to what was the defence taken by the respondents in the reply which was filed by them to the petition, which was so filed by the present appellant before the learned Court below. 19. I will dwell on all these aspects of the matter independently. 20. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that what primarily weighed with it while dismissing the petition was that; (a) there was no date on the Will; (b) there were over writings upon the Will; (c) there were inconsistencies in the statements of petitioner’s witnesses; and (d) respondents, who were sisters of the petitioner, were referred to as “relatives” in the probate petition. 21. Will in issue is Ex. 21. Will in issue is Ex. PW1/A. The factum of the same being duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla on 26.06.1985 is not in dispute. A will which was executed by the father of the appellant, i.e., the husband of testator Ram Chameli Khanna, is on record as Ex. PW5/A. As per the learned trial Court, there were over writings in Ex. PW1/A, which render the same suspicious. A perusal of Ex. PW1/A demonstrates that words “New Delhi” which were prefixed after the words “Greater Kailash” were struck off and the words “New Delhi” thereafter find mention after the words “No. 1”. Second overwriting is in the word “Executor”, wherein it appears that capital “E” was later on typed. Similarly, two more over writings are there in the said Will, wherein the word “his” has been corrected as “her”. Besides this, there is no other over writing in Ex. PW1/A. Though learned trial Court refers in its judgment that there were other over writings upon the same, but it has not elaborated as to what were those over writings and how the same rendered the execution of the Will to be suspicious. Striking off of the words “New Delhi” apparently was because these words were to come after the complete address. Similarly, overwriting in the word “Executor” is only of one particular alphabet, which does not in any way affect the contents of nature of the Will. Further two over writings which had been made to word “his” into “her” were done probably because of typographical error and as testator was female, word “his” was corrected as “her”. There is no overwriting either in the name of the testator or with the main contents of the Will, which mentioned as to what the testator intended to do by way of execution of the said Will. These very important aspects of the matter had been completely ignored by the learned trial Court while holding that over writings in the Will rendered the execution of the same suspicious. In my considered view, learned trial Court hastened to come to the conclusion that the over writings in the Will rendered the same suspicious without dwelling upon as to what were those over writings and what was their effect upon the Will so executed by the testator. In my considered view, learned trial Court hastened to come to the conclusion that the over writings in the Will rendered the same suspicious without dwelling upon as to what were those over writings and what was their effect upon the Will so executed by the testator. Therefore, the findings returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that there were over writings over the Will, which rendered the same suspicious, are perverse and not sustainable. 22. Learned trial Court has also held that because there was no date mentioned in the Will, therefore also, the same was a suspicious document. A perusal of Ex. PW1/A demonstrates that though no date is mentioned on the Will, but the month and year of the execution is there. Similarly, it is a matter of record that the Will was registered on 26.06.1985, whereas its testator died on 30.03.2011. In order to prove the execution of the Will, petitioner examined the Scribe as well as one attesting witness and son of the other attesting witness, who had since died. 23. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 prescribes the mode of execution of unprivileged Wills and the same provides that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence by his direction and signature or mark of testator, or signature of 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 and the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator. 24. Though it is a matter of record that the Will was not containing any date, however, it stands explained by the Scribe of the Will that mentioning of the date upon the same was inadvertently left out. 24. Though it is a matter of record that the Will was not containing any date, however, it stands explained by the Scribe of the Will that mentioning of the date upon the same was inadvertently left out. In these circumstances, when the Scribe of the Will as well as one marginal witness of the same has proved the Will in the Court of law, demonstrating therein that the Will was executed as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the finding returned by the learned trial Court that the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances, because it did not contain any date is not sustainable. Learned Court below erred in not appreciating that not only the month and year of the execution of the Will was duly mentioned upon the same, the Will in issue was later on duly registered by its testator, which fact stands proved on record by the statement of PW-3 and further, the testator had died almost 15 years after the execution and registration of the Will. 25. Now, I will refer to the findings returned by the learned Court below with regard to the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner. I have referred in detail in the above paras of the judgment the findings, which were so returned by the Court below. For the sake of paucity, the same are not being repeated. Suffice it to say that the conclusion which had been drawn by the learned Court below about the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner are totally perverse and a result of mis-reading and mis-construing the testimonies of the said witnesses. 26. A perusal of the statement of Sh. Madan Lal (PW-1), one of the marginal witnesses to the Will, demonstrates that he has categorically deposed in the Court that in July 1984, Smt. Ram Chameli Khanna had executed a Will in his presence, which was signed by the testator in his presence as well as the other witnesses. This witness has clearly deposed in the Court that the testator had affixed her signatures upon the Will in his presence and at the relevant time, not only the testator was in sound mind, but before she affixed her signatures upon the Will, the same was read over and explained to her by the Scribe. This witness has clearly deposed in the Court that the testator had affixed her signatures upon the Will in his presence and at the relevant time, not only the testator was in sound mind, but before she affixed her signatures upon the Will, the same was read over and explained to her by the Scribe. This witness further stated that the testator had acknowledged the contents of the Will to be correct in front of him. 27. PW-2 Sh. Yashpal Sharma had also categorically deposed in the Court that Mast Ram Sharma, the other attesting witness, was his father, who had died on 18.11.1990. He also stated that Will Ex. PW1/A contained the signatures of his father, which he duly identified. 28. PW-5, the Scribe of the Will, Sh. Ajay Kumar deposed in the Court that testator Ram Chameli had got her Will drafted from him, copy of which was Ex. PW1/A. This witness also deposed that the Will was drafted as per the instructions of testator and was signed by the witnesses in his office and that the Will was signed by both the testator as well as the witnesses in his presence. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the Will was typed in the month of July 1984 and witnesses were not there and he had told Badri Nath to come along with witnesses. He further deposed in his cross-examination that the date was not mentioned upon the Will inadvertently. 29. Propounder of the Will entered the witness box as PW-4 and deposition which he had made in the Court, has been dealt with by me in above para of the judgment. 30. It is pertinent to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Vs. Vinod Kumar and others (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 387, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the facts of that case that presence of appellant “propounder” at the time of execution of Will and the factum of testator not giving anything to other parties from his share in joint property was not decisive of the issue relating to genuineness or validity of the Will in issue. 31. Now, when one reads the statements of PW-1 and PW-5, one finds that there is no discrepancy in their statements with regard to the mode and manner in which the Will was executed. 31. Now, when one reads the statements of PW-1 and PW-5, one finds that there is no discrepancy in their statements with regard to the mode and manner in which the Will was executed. Only thing is whereas PW-1 deposed that the propounder of the Will was present when the Will was executed, PW-5 has deposed to the contrary. Now, the moot issue is as to whether will this solitary reference in the statement of PW-1 render the execution of the Will to be suspicious? In my considered view, the answer is in negative. I have minutely gone through the records of the case and there is not even an iota of evidence produced on record by the respondent from which it can be inferred that the propounder had played some role, leave aside some significant role in the execution of the Will. Even, the suggestion which was given by the respondent to the Scribe was not that the Will was scribed by him at the behest of propounder. The suggestion was that the Will was scribed at the behest of husband of the propounder. Be that as it may, one can also not lose sight of the fact that whereas the Will was executed in the year 1984, the statement of PW-1 was recorded in the month of November, 2012, when the said witness was 81 years old. Even the statement of PW-5 had been totally mis-read and misconstrued by the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has assumed that PW-5 was deposing falsely by on one hand, stating that no witnesses were present and on the other hand, stating that the Will was signed by the witnesses in his presence. Inference to this effect drawn by the learned trial Court is completely perverse. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW-5 demonstrates that he has not said what the learned trial Court has in fact concluded. All that this witness deposed was that when Badri Nath had come for the purpose of execution of the Will, witnesses were not there and he had asked him to bring the witnesses. One does not understand as to from where from the said evidence it could be concluded that neither the Will was signed by the testator in front of the Scribe nor other witnesses had appended their signatures in front of the Scribe. One does not understand as to from where from the said evidence it could be concluded that neither the Will was signed by the testator in front of the Scribe nor other witnesses had appended their signatures in front of the Scribe. Accordingly, I hold that the findings returned to this effect by the learned trial Court are perverse and are not borne out from the records of the case. 32. It is also pertinent to mention that the adverse inference which had been drawn by the learned trial Court from the fact that the petitioner had mentioned his sisters in the probate petition to be relatives is also completely perverse, because undoubtedly, respondents being sisters of the petitioner were his relatives. It is not understood as to how the mentioning of sisters in the probate petition as relatives shrouded the Will with suspicion. 33. There is another important aspect of the matter, which also has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court while deciding the case. Records demonstrate that respondent Smt. Anita Khanna did not contest the probate petition. Similarly, Smt. Asha Taneja, who contested the petition, took a specific stand in her reply that deceased Ram Chameli Khanna had not executed any Will in favour of the petitioner and the Will in issue was a forged and fabricated document. It is also a matter of record that said Asha Taneja did not enter the witness box on the pretext of ill health, which was sought to be proved on the basis of a medical certificate issued by a colleague of her’s. It is also as matter of record that it was her son who deposed on her behalf in the Court that said son was aged only 7 years in the year 1984, when the Will in issue was executed. 34. Be that as it may, principle of law is that the initial onus to prove the Will is upon its propounder and once the propounder discharged that onus, then it is for the person assailing the Will to prove that the Will was not a genuine document. 35. In my considered view, the propounder in the present case had successfully discharged the initial onus of proving that the Will was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances. 35. In my considered view, the propounder in the present case had successfully discharged the initial onus of proving that the Will was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances. This he did on the basis of testimony of one marginal witness, Scribe of the Will and son of other marginal witness, who was since dead as well as from the statement of official, who proved the factum of the Will being registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Shimla. 36. I have already held above that the findings which were returned by the learned trial Court to the effect that the petitioner was not able to dispel the factum of the Will being shrouded with suspicious circumstances are perverse findings. Once the specific stand taken in the reply by the respondent was that the Will was a forged and fabricated document, then onus was upon her to prove that it was a forged and fabricated document. A forged and fabricated document means that the document was not executed by the person who as per the propounder executed the same. While deciding the petition, learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that the grounds on which respondent had disputed the Will were obviously to be proved by her. It further erred in not appreciating that onus was upon the respondents to have proved that the Will was a false and fabricated document. It is a matter of record that no evidence was led by the contesting respondent to prove that the Will was a forged and fabricated document. In the absence of the respondent having produced evidence to the effect that the Will was a forged and fabricated document and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had discharged the initial onus of proving that the Will was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances, learned Court below gravely erred in dismissing the petition by returning findings without correctly appreciating either the pleadings of the parties or the evidence on record, both ocular as well as documentary. 37. In view of above discussion, this appeal is allowed. Judgment, dated 01.09.2015, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-II, Shimla in Petition No. RBT-3-S/2 of 2014/11 is set aside and the petition filed by the appellant for grant of probate is allowed, as prayed for. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.