JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment and decree rendered on 5.1.2005 by the learned District Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1999 whereby he set aside the judgment and decree of 16.10.2004 rendered in Civil Suit No. 133/45/149/2002 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Sarkagaht, District Mandi, H.P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Badru was jointly owner in possession of the land comprised in Chew No. 68/36 min Khatauni No. 89 khasra Nos. 480, 480/1, 481, 891, 894, 899, 901, 903, 904, 943, 944, 946, 948, 950, 951, 954, 956, 961, 1017, 1040, 1053, 1058, 1081, 1094, 1221, 1225, 1230, 1232 kitas 28 measuring 1-71-73 hectare situated in village Mohin, (for short “the suit land”) with Sh. Baldev Singh. Smt. Badru died on 7.11.1994. It is alleged that appellant No. 1 herein (for short plaintiff No.1) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Badru and appellants No. 2 to 4 herein (plaintiffs No. 2 to 4) are respectively the grandchildren of deceased Badru. The plaintiffs used to live jointly with the deceased Badru but the respondents herein (for short the defendants) setup a false and fictitious will alleged to have been executed in their favour by the deceased whereas in fact Badru had not executed any such will. It is further alleged that in fact Badru had executed a will of her property in favour of the plaintiff No.1 on 4.11.1994 in presence of other witnesses of the locality and when the same was produced before the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, the attestation of the same was deferred as the defendants claimed that a will has been executed in their favour on 3.12.1992. It is further alleged that the ill in favour of the plaintiff No.1 is a valid will executed by deceased Badru and being her last will is binding on the parties but on the basis of the will of 3.12.1992 the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land, hence the instant suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written-statement. The defendants have taken the ground of maintainability and want of cause of action. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written-statement. The defendants have taken the ground of maintainability and want of cause of action. On merit, it is submitted by the defendants that deceased Badru had been living with them and as such executed a valid will of her property in their favour. The will of 4.11.1994 is alleged to be a false and fictitious document and as such, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. In the replication, the plaintiffs controverted the contention of the defendants and reiterated their stand taken in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- “1. Whether the will of 3.12.1992 is false and fictitious document as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the deceased Badru Devi has executed a valid will dated 3.12.1992, in favour of the defendants? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the deceased Badru Devi has executed a valid will dated 4.11.1994? OPD 6. Relief.” 6. The relief, as prayed for, by the plaintiffs in their suit stood accorded to them by the learned trial Court. In an appeal preferred there from by the defendants before the Court of the learned District Judge concerned, the latter Court dis-concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court hence proceeded to accept the appeal preferred there before by the defendants. The plaintiffs have instituted the instant appeal before this Court for assailing the findings recorded in his impugned rendition by the learned District Judge. 7. The appeal stood admitted by the Court on 25.10.2005. The following substantial questions of law stood framed by this Court on 14.6.2016, hence, this Court would decide the instant appeal by merely rendering answers thereto. (1) Whether findings arrived by learned District Judge below in holding that Will dated 4.11.94 was executed in the suspicious circumstances is perverse being not supported by any evidence? The following substantial questions of law stood framed by this Court on 14.6.2016, hence, this Court would decide the instant appeal by merely rendering answers thereto. (1) Whether findings arrived by learned District Judge below in holding that Will dated 4.11.94 was executed in the suspicious circumstances is perverse being not supported by any evidence? (2) Whether learned Court below has erred in law by brushing aside the documentary evidences i.e. copy of Will dated 4.11.94, copy of Misal Haquiat, Pedigree Table, Copy of statement of Smt. Nirmala Devi coupled with the statement of PW-1 to PW-6 which clearly shows that this Will is the last and final Will validly executed by late Smt. Badru in favour of appellant/plaintiff No.1? (3) Whether judgment & decree of learned District Judge is based on any legal evidence whatsoever produced by the respondents/defendants? 8. The deceased testator Badru qua her estate executed testamentary dispositions initially on 3.12.1992 and subsequently on 4.11.1994. The testamentary disposition of 3.12.1992 (Ex. DA) stands propounded by the defendants whereas the testamentary disposition of 4.11.1994 (Ex.PA) stands propounded by the plaintiffs. 9. The defendants are the daughters of the deceased testator whereas the plaintiffs are respectively her daughter-in- law besides her grandchildren. One Baldev Singh son of the deceased testator predeceased the latter. 10. The learned trial Court had imputed credence to Ex.PA, imputations whereof thereon, stood prodded by the factum of marginal witnesses thereto PW-3 (Kamla Devi) and PW-5 (Krishni Devi) deposing in tandem with the statutory ingredients embodied in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act (for short “the Act”), comprised in theirs unequivocally testifying qua the deceased testator in their respective presence thumb marking Ex.PA where after they subsequently in her presence appended there signatures thereon. 11. The defendants had espoused qua with the earlier will of 3.12.1992 as propounded by them standing registered besides with evident acrimony inter-se the relationship of the deceased testator Badru vis-à-vis her predeceased son Baldev, comprised in the factum of hers standing goaded to seek monthly maintenance from him besides constituted in the factum of hers during the lifetime of her predeceased son separating her share from his share whereupon she stood prompted to execute a testamentary disposition of 3.12.1992, thereupon Ex. DA holds the relevant probative sinew vis-à-vis the subsequently executed will Ex. DA holds the relevant probative sinew vis-à-vis the subsequently executed will Ex. PA qua the plaintiffs, yet the aforesaid espousal of the defendants stood discountenanced by the learned trial Court on anvil of the deceased testator when beset with the trauma of her estranged son predeceasing her, hence thereupon for providing sufficient means/assets for her daughter-in-law besides for her grandchildren hence holding a re-contemplation to make a device qua them, thereupon hers hence executing a will comprised in Ex.PA vis-à-vis the plaintiffs, testamentary disposition whereof when is bereft of any suspicious circumstances besides stands proven to be validly executed by the deceased testator by the marginal witnesses thereto, hence rendered it to hold preponderance upon any previous registered disposition made/executed by the deceased testator qua her estate vis-à-vis the defendants. 12. The learned District Judge, Mandi on standing seized with an appeal constituted there before by the aggrieved defendants had dispelled the efficacy of proof adduced by the attesting witnesses qua the valid and due execution of Ex.PA, preeminently with suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution imminently surging forth, suspicious circumstances when remained in-explicated, thereupon dehors the attesting witnesses thereto making visible echoings in their respective testifications qua its within the statutory parameters engrafted in Section 63 of the Act hence standing proven to be validly and duly executed, nonetheless with the vigor of the suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, remaining unerased, hence rendered them to predominate the effect of the relevant testifications of the attesting witnesses to Ex.PA. 13. The demise of the son of deceased testator occurred on 28.10.1994 whereas Ex.PA stood scribed on 4.11.1994 besides with the PW-2 (Kanta Devi) alongwith her father PW-4 (Narayan Singh) taking an active part in the execution of the will also with the latter being a scribe of will Ex.PA perse constitutes a grave suspicious circumstance shrouding the execution of Ex.PA. Even though the participation of a beneficiary, in the execution of a testamentary disposition, would not thereupon render any testamentary disposition, when stands proven by sine wed evidence, echoed by attesting witnesses thereto, whereupon a firm inference qua theirs holding the requisite legum animus attestendi would naturally ensue hence rendering it to be efficaciously proven, qua thereupon its standing construed to be legally unworthy while. However, the proximity of relationship inter-se PW-2 Kanta Devi and PW-4 Narayan Singh, its scribe, is sufficient for it being construable to be un-worthwhile, conspicuously when the testamentary disposition of 3.12.1992 hence executed previous thereto stood registered, registration whereof occurred only with the deceased testator traveling from her native village upto the office of sub Registrar concerned, whereas Ex. PA remained un-registered despite no evidence emanating qua the criticality of her physical health at the time contemporaneous to the execution of Ex.PA whereupon she stood precluded to travel upto the office of sub Registrar concerned, non-registration whereof naturally adds vigor to all the in explicated suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Ex.PA rendering it to thereupon looses its vigor, despite no mandate standing voiced in a catena of judicial verdicts qua non-registration of a testamentary disposition diminishing its probative worth. 14. Moreover, with will of 3.12.1992 standing scribed by a professional deed writer whereas PW-4 father of PW-2 Kanta Devi scribing Ex.PA, effect whereof when construed in coagulation with the deceased testator not traveling upto the Office of Sub Registrar concerned whereas earlier she had traveled there upto for obtaining registration of Ex.PA from the Sub Registrar concerned, foments an inference qua the active participation of PW-4 with PW-2 , the latter being its beneficiary when otherwise may not constitute a suspicious circumstance, its contrarily hereat constituting a grave suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Ex.PA whereupon it predominates the factum of proof, qua its valid and due execution by the deceased testator, as rendered by marginal witnesses thereto. 15. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended qua the aforesaid suspicious circumstances as stand concluded by the learned first Appellate Court to dispel the efficacy of the testifications of the marginal witnesses to Ext. PA, when stand not specifically cornered within the pleadings of the defendants comprised in their written statement, thereupon any marshaling of the aforesaid circumstances, by the learned first Appellate Court, for, its hence pronouncing upon the invalidity of Ext. PA, was wholly unwarranted. 16. PA, when stand not specifically cornered within the pleadings of the defendants comprised in their written statement, thereupon any marshaling of the aforesaid circumstances, by the learned first Appellate Court, for, its hence pronouncing upon the invalidity of Ext. PA, was wholly unwarranted. 16. However, the aforesaid submission is rudderless, significantly when it is the salient paramount duty of courts of law, when suspicious circumstance make their visible appearance there before, to hence from the evidence available on record make apposite discernments qua the potency of their invalidatory effect upon the testifications of marginal witnesses to the relevant testamentary disposition, thereupon with visible emergence of the aforesaid potent circumstances also when they perse smack of suspicion, it was the paramount duty of the learned first Appellate Court to when they remained in explicated also dehors omission of any pleadings in respect thereto, to mobilize an inference qua their potent invalidatory effect upon the efficacy of the depositions of marginal witness to Ext. PA. 17. The marginal witnesses to Ext. PA, PW-3 and PW- 5 stand testified by PW-2, to cultivate her land also qua theirs taking biddings from her, wherefrom it apt to draw a firm conclusion qua theirs being under the command of Kanta Devi, hence standing chosen by her as marginal witnesses to Ext. PA, theirs being convenient witnesses thereto also thereupon theirs being amenable to stand tutored by PW-2 for deposing even qua the factum of purported execution of Ex. PA by the deceased testator also qua theirs with a tutored besides an invented animus attestendi hence subscribing their respective signatures thereon only for enhancing an inference qua its purported valid and due execution by the deceased testator. Though, the aforesaid inference may stand dismantled by the factum qua a beneficiary to a Will holding an option to choose marginal witnesses in whom he/she reposes confidence yet the aforesaid inference would not remain intact, as the choice of marginal witnesses by any beneficiary to a testamentary disposition is not significant rather the choice of marginal witnesses by the executor of a testamentary disposition, is of overwhelming importance, yet when no evidence surges forth qua the deceased testator standing disabled to make any choice of the relevant marginal witnesses also when no evidence surges forth qua no witnesses other than the convenient witnesses, for the reasons aforestated, being available, at the stage contemporaneous to the execution of Ext. PA, thereupon the effect of participation of the conveniently chosen marginal witnesses to Ex.PA is qua their echoings qua the relevant statutory facet losing their vigor. 18. Nowat, the effect of the interestedness of scribe of Ext. PA PW-4 comprised in his holding the relationship of father of PW-2 Kanta Devi, when stands construed in conjunction with the association, of convenient tutored witnesses by PW-2 Kanta Devi, at the relevant stage of completion of execution of Ext. PA, stirs a firm conclusion, conspicuously when the deceased testator is evidently illiterate, illiteracy whereof of the deceased testator stems from the factum of hers thumb marking Ext. PA, qua hence the scribe, beneficiary also the marginal witnesses to Ext. PA with intra se complicity stalling the deceased testator to comprehend the contents of Ext. PA also theirs with intra se complicity, to ensure a bequest by her vis-à-vis the plaintiffs their misreading to her the recitals recorded in Ext. PA hence hers standing bequeathed to thumb mark Ex. PA whereupon the relevant recitals occurring therein, even when stood thumb marked by the deceased testator also when marginal witnesses thereto in tandem with the apposite principles engrafted in Section 63 of the Act lent efficacious proof in respect thereto, nonetheless the testimonies of the marginal witnesses are amenable to a construction qua theirs purveying a tutored version thereto whereupon their relevant testifications do not command any vigor. 19. The vigor of the logic assigned by the learned trial Court to dispel the effect of acrimony existing inter-se her with her predeceased son, in sequel whereto under will of 3.12.1992 she disinherited him, standing terminated by the factum of his predeceasing her whereupon she stood constrained to re-contemplate qua the manner of hers disbursing her estate amongst her legal heirs, significantly with hers holding leanings towards the well being of the plaintiffs, hers thereupon executing Ext. PA vis-à-vis them also does not hold any tenacity, as the aforesaid reason appears to be in its entirety surmisal, significantly when it also benumbs the effect of all the aforesaid grave suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will Ext. PA vis-à-vis them also does not hold any tenacity, as the aforesaid reason appears to be in its entirety surmisal, significantly when it also benumbs the effect of all the aforesaid grave suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will Ext. PA besides when effect thereof stands ripped apart by PW-5 voicing in his testification qua the deceased testator not taken to reside with the plaintiffs even when she visited her village wherefrom it is apt to concomitantly record a formidable conclusion qua despite the demise of the son of the deceased testator occurring prior to her demise, the former yet not enjoying any cordial relations with PW2 Kanta Devi his surviving wife nor also thereupon hers holding any recontemplation qua her previous testamentary disposition warranting any alteration/replacement, by hers subsequently executing Ext. PA qua her estate vis-à-vis the plaintiffs. Preeminently want of registration of Ext. PA despite no evidence surging forth qua the criticality of her physical condition hence dissuading her from traveling from her village upto the office of sub Registrar concerned, does hereat, given the evident active participation in the execution of Ext. PA of PW-4 its scribe with beneficiarys thereof, his holding a relationship respectively with them, as their father besides grandfather also with association in the execution of Ext. PA of tutored convenient witnesses, hence acquire tremendous evidentiary worth also constitutes a grave suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Ext. PA, wherefrom this Court stands equipped to nail a conclusion qua dehors the testifications of marginal witnesses, reiteratedly the want of registration of the will concerned, when its registration would otherwise dispel an inference qua their testimonies for the reasons aforestated lacking vigor, hence constrains this Court to conclude qua, it, spurring from the plaintiffs’ concerting to preclude the uncovering of falsities held in the recitals embodied in the will of 3.12.1992. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, the verdict recorded by the learned first Appellate Court stands maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.