JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No.27/07, affirming therein judgment and decree dated 10.7.2007, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Manali in Civil Suit No.32/05, whereby suit for declaration having been filed by the appellant-plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that she has become owner in possession of land comprised in Khata/Katauni No.631/1045 bearing Khasra No.5224, measuring 5-0-0 bigha, situated in Phati Burua Kothi and Tehsil Manali, District Kullu as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 (here-in-after referred to as the ‘suit land’) on the basis of last and final Will dated 1.3.2002 executed by deceased Khekhi Devi. Plaintiff also prayed by way of aforesaid suit that Mutation No.3158, dated 29.6.2002, which has wrongly been attested and sanctioned in the name of defendants, may also be declared wrong, illegal, null and void, inoperative against the plaintiff and defendants be restrained from causing any sort of interference in peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the suit land. Plaintiff claimed that Smt.Kheki Devi daughter of Uttam Ram, who was unmarried, was owner in possession of the suit land and was her real sister. Plaintiff also claimed herself to be sole legal heir of Smt.Kheki Devi. As per plaintiff, Smt.Kheki Devi was residing at village Goshal Phati Burua Kothi, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, at her parental house because she was unmarried uptill her death. The plaintiff alongwith her family members used to render services to Smt.Kheki Devi, who, inturn having pleased with the services rendered by the plaintiff and her family members, executed last Will dated 1.3.2002 bequeathing thereby suit land in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff-appellant claimed that Smt.Kheki Devi, after executing Will dated 1.3.2002 in her favour, deposited the same with Registrar, Kullu vide document No.1 dated 1.3.2002. Plaintiff further averred that Kheki Devi died on 10.6.2002 at village Goshal and her last rites were performed by her. Plaintiff-appellant claimed that Smt.Kheki Devi, after executing Will dated 1.3.2002 in her favour, deposited the same with Registrar, Kullu vide document No.1 dated 1.3.2002. Plaintiff further averred that Kheki Devi died on 10.6.2002 at village Goshal and her last rites were performed by her. Plaintiff further claimed that defendant No.1 has sold the entire suit land to defendant No.2 in order to deprive her from the right which accrued to her after execution of Will in her favour by Smt. Kheki Devi and as such sale deed is mere paper entry and is not binding upon her. Plaintiff further claimed that since no possession was ever delivered to defendant No.2, sale deed being a mere paper entry cannot be looked into. Plaintiff further claimed that in terms of Will dated 1.3.2002 executed by deceased Kheki Devi, she has inherited the entire estate of deceased and has become owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant in the month of June, 2004 along with one Chattar Singh of village Goshal came to the plaintiff and asked her to leave the entire suit land because they have become owners of the suit land. Subsequently, on inquiry, it emerged that the defendant, in connivance with revenue officials, has got mutation No.3158 dated 29.6.2002 attested in his favour on the basis of some forged and fictitious Will. Since, both the Patwari Halqua as well as the defendant refused to enter and admit the last and final Will of Kheki Devi, she was compelled to file the instant suit. 3. Both the defendants, by way of detailed separate written statements, raised various preliminary objections qua maintainability and competency of the suit, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, plaintiff estopped by her acts and conduct to file the present suit and suit not being properly valued for the purpose of court fee and resisted the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff. Aforesaid defendants specifically stated that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Court. Aforesaid defendants specifically stated that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from the Court. On merits, defendant No.1 specifically stated in his written statement that deceased Kheki Devi was owner in possession of the suit land, however, he pleaded that Smt.Kheki before her marriage with him had acquired the suit land by way of Nautor and thereafter, solemnized marriage with him and she lived with him as his wife uptill her death. He also admitted that deceased Kheki was sister of plaintiff, but, denied that deceased Kheki was unmarried and the plaintiff was only legal heir of deceased Kheki. The aforesaid defendant No.1 specifically pleaded in his written statement that deceased Kheki Devi daughter of Uttam Chand, resident of village Goshal Phati Burua Kothi Manali, District Kullu, is his legally wedded wife as their marriage took place according to the local custom in the year 1977 and deceased Kheki was living with him at his house and he was looking after, maintaining and rendering all kinds of services to his wife during her life time, who in turn having been pleased with the services rendered by the defendant to her, executed her last Will on 8.6.2002 and Mutation No.3158, dated 29.6.2002 was rightly attested and sanctioned in his favour. Defendants further denied the assertion having been made by the plaintiff that Kheki being unmarried was residing at her parental house at village Goshal Phati Burua and plaintiff and her family members had rendered services to her, who, in turn, having been pleased with the services rendered by the plaintiff and her family members, executed Will dated 1.3.2002 in favour of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also denied that the plaintiff, on the basis of Will dated 1.3.2002, became owner in possession of the suit land and claimed that alleged Will dated 1.3.2002 was managed and procured by the plaintiff by mis-representation and undue influence and on the basis of aforesaid Will dated 1.3.2002 the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit the suit land. Similarly, defendant though admitted that Smt.Kheki Devi died on 10.6.2002 but specifically denied that she died at village Goshal. Similarly, defendant though admitted that Smt.Kheki Devi died on 10.6.2002 but specifically denied that she died at village Goshal. Defendant No.1, while denying that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, has specifically pleaded that he had sold the suit land to defendant No.2 Chhatar Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- vide sale deed No.329, dated 27.12.2003 and since then defendant No.2 is sole absolute owner of the suit land. Defendant No.2, in his separate written statement, has adopted the defence as taken by defendant No.1 and has also denied the execution of Will dated 1.3.2002 in favour of plaintiff by deceased Kheki. Defendant No.2 also pleaded that deceased Kheki has executed Will dated 8.6.2002 as her last Will in favour of her husband defendant No.1, in her sound disposing state of mind. He also supported the version put forth by defendant No.1 that after death of deceased Kheki Devi, defendant No.1 had performed her last rites and inherited the suit land qua which mutation No.3158 dated 29.6.2002 had been attested and sanctioned rightly. Apart from above, defendant No.2 also claimed himself to be bonafide purchaser of the suit land and claimed that he is owner in possession of the same because he had purchased the same from defendant No.1 for consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- vide sale deed No.379, dated 27.12.2003. In the aforesaid background, defendants sought dismissal of the suit having been filed by the plaintiffs. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of suit land on the basis of Will dated 1.3.2002 alleged to have been executed by deceased Smt.Kheki Devi as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether Mutation No.3158 dated 29.6.2002 is wrong, illegal and void as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of injunction as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non-joinder for necessary parties as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether deceased Kheki Devi executed valid Will dated 8.6.2002 in favour of defendant No.1, if so, its effect? OPD-1 9. OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by her act and conduct? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether deceased Kheki Devi executed valid Will dated 8.6.2002 in favour of defendant No.1, if so, its effect? OPD-1 9. Whether defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for consideration of the suit land as alleged? OPD-2. 10. Relief”. 5. Subsequently, vide judgment and decree dated 10.7.2007, learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, appellant-plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) before the learned District Judge, Kullu, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal No.27/07, however, fact remains that appeal was dismissed, as a result of which judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court below came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, appellant-plaintiff approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for decreeing her suit after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 7. This Court, on 3.9.2008, admitted the instant appeal on the following substantial question of law: “(1) Whether the ld.Courts below mis-read and mis-appreciated the bare provision of law regarding the due execution of the will dated 1.3.2002 and findings to the contrary are sustainable in the eyes of law or not? 2. Whether the document can be reliable even which is registered under the authority of registration and further the registered document can be discarded in the light of the unregistered document, even when registration and execution of the registered document has been proved?” 8. Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, vehemently argued that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same are not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Thakur, while specifically referring to the impugned judgment passed by first appellate Court, contended that bare perusal of the same suggests that learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective as a result of which erroneous findings have come on record to the detriment of plaintiff, who successfully proved on record that the deceased Kheki Devi had executed Ex.PW-1/A, Will dated 1.3.2002 in her favour bequeathing thereby entire movable and immovable property in her favour. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, Mr.Thakur also invited the attention of this Court to the statements of plaintiff witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 as well as documentary evidence to demonstrate that plaintiff successfully proved on record that Will Ex.PW-1/A was duly executed by Smt.Kheki Devi in favour of the plaintiff and as such judgment and decree passed by the Courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside being contrary to the record available on the file. Mr.Thakur further contended that learned Courts below have specifically failed to return findings qua each issue separately as was incumbent upon them in terms of the provisions contained in Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, but, while referring to the issues framed by Courts below, Mr.Thakur contended that bare perusal of the judgments passed by both the Courts below clearly suggest that none of the issues were discussed and decided separately by assigning cogent and convincing reasons as a result of which great prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff, who, by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence, successfully proved on record that she was the only legal heirs of Smt.Kheki Devi, who died unmarried. 9. Mr.Thakur further contended that both the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that Will Ex.PW-1/A dated 1.3.2002 was registered document and its execution was duly proved in accordance with law by the plaintiff, but despite that learned Courts below placed undue reliance upon the other registered Will placed on record by defendants to defeat the genuine claim of the plaintiff. While specifically inviting the attention of this Court towards the statement given by defendant, Mr.Thakur contended that defendants specifically admitted before the Courts below that land in question was of deceased Kheki Devi and same was acquired by her before her marriage and as such presumption of truth is/was attached to execution of Will in favour of plaintiff-appellant, more particularly, when defendant No.1 claimed himself to be legally wedded husband of deceased Kheki Devi. 10. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Thakur contended that there is no evidence led on record by the defendants suggestive of the fact that he was legally wedded husband of Smt.Kheki Devi, who, as per plaintiff, was unmarried. Mr.Thakur, while specifically inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.DW-2/A i.e. Will executed by Kheki Devi in favour of defendant No.1, forcefully contended that learned Courts below failed to appreciate that the same is/was shrouded by suspicious circumstance because no mention, if any, has been made of date of earlier Will executed by Kheki Devi in favour of plaintiff, while making recitement, if any, with regard to withdrawal of earlier Will made in favour of plaintiff. Mr.Thakur also stated that age of the testator; namely; Kheki Devi has been shown to be 75 years at the time of execution of Will, whereas, age of the defendant as recorded at the time of recording his statement was 55 years and as such it could not be accepted by the Courts below that defendant No.1 was legally wedded husband of deceased Kheki Devi. In the aforesaid background, Mr.Thakur prayed that the suit having been filed by the plaintiff may be decreed after setting aside the judgment passed by both the Courts below. 11. Mr.Rajnish K.Lall, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Mr.Lall, while specifically inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below, strenuously argued that the same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties and as such there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the well reasoned findings of both the Courts below, especially when perusal of the same suggests that Courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. While refuting the arguments having been made by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, Mr. While refuting the arguments having been made by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel representing the plaintiff, Mr. Lall invited the attention of this Court to the plaintiffs witnesses to demonstrate that none of plaintiff’s witness was able to prove due execution of Will Ex.PW-1/A in favour of plaintiff. Mr. Lall, while specifically referring to the statement made by the plaintiff witnesses, stated that learned Courts below rightly concluded that Will Ex.PW-1/A was actually scribed at the behest of plaintiff. Mr.Lall further contended that none of the marginal witnesses as cited by the plaintiff could prove due execution of Will in favour of plaintiff. Mr. Lall specifically invited the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-3 Chhavinder Thakur i.e. Scribe of the Will to demonstrate that Will Ex.PW-1/A, allegedly executed by Kheki Devi in favour of plaintiff, was wholly doubtful and as such learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that Will Ex.PW-1/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. While referring to the evidence led on record by defendants, Mr.Lall contended that bare perusal of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by defendants clearly suggests that subsequent Will Ex.DW-2/A was executed by Smt.Kheki Devi in sound, disposing state of mind in favour of defendant No.1 bequeathing thereby her entire movable and immovable property in favour of defendant No.1. 12. While concluding his arguments, Mr.Lall contended that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence especially in view of the concurrent findings on the facts as well as on law recorded by both the Courts below. In this regard, to substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma and Others vs. Ranganath and Others, (2015)4 SCC 264 . 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. 14. Needless to say that law regarding nature and onus of the proof of the Will is by way of propounder and in that regard the manner, in which the evidence is required to be appreciated, has been duly prescribed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 SC 443 . 15. 15. Guidelines framed in H.Venkatachala Iyengar case (supra) were further reiterated by Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and others, AIR 1964 SC 529 . The Court held: “4. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, 1959 (S1) SCR 426 : 1959 AIR(SC) 443) and Rani Purniama Devi v. Khagendra Narayan Dev, 1962 (3) SCR 195 : 1962 AIR(SC) 567). The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no. such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indication in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested. (Page-531) 16. Though normally onus to prove the execution and validity of the Will lies upon the propounder but in case when it is alleged by the opposite party that Will is not genuine document, onus shifts on the person who alleges the Will to be forged, to prove the same. 17. In Daulat Ram and Others vs. Sodha and Others, (2005)1 SCC 40 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “10. Will being a document has to be proved by primary evidence except where the Court permits a document to be proved by leading secondary evidence. Since it is required to be attested, as provided in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it cannot be used as evidence until one of the attesting witnesses at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. In addition, it has to satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In order to assess as to whether the Will has been validly executed and is a genuine document, the propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator and that he had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind and understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and that the testator had signed it in the presence of two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. But where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to remove the suspicion by leading appropriate evidence. The burden to prove that the will was forged or that it was obtained under undue influence or coercion or by playing a fraud is on the person who alleges it to be so.” (Page 43) 18. Since both the substantial questions of law, as reproduced hereinabove, are interlinked, they are taken up together for consideration. 19. This Court carefully examined the pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by respective parties to explore the answer to the aforesaid substantial questions of law, perusal where of now here suggests that there has been misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence led on record by the respective parties, rather, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that both the Courts below had dealt with each and every aspect of the matter meticulously and has assigned valid reasons in support of its findings. This Court sees no force much less substantial in the arguments having been made by learned counsel representing the plaintiff that both the Courts below have erred in concluding that Will Ex.PW- 1/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstance. It clearly emerge from the pleadings as well as evidence, be it ocular or documentary, that there is no dispute, if any, with regard to the fact that deceased Smt.Kheki Devi was owner in possession of the suit land. Similarly, there is no dispute with regard to fact that the plaintiff is/was sister of deceased Smt.Kheki Devi and deceased Smt.Kheki Devi had passed away on 10.6.2002. As per plaintiff, Smt.Kheki Devi was unmarried and she before her death was residing at Goshal Phati Burwa with plaintiff and her family members. But, interestingly, there is no evidence led on record by the plaintiff suggestive of the fact that Smt.Kheki Devi was unmarried and she had been residing with the plaintiff at her native village Gushal till her death. 20. PW-1 Smt.Kalpna Sharma, Registration Clerk in the office of Registrar, Kullu, deposed before the Court that as per record brought by her, there is/was entry in Register No.3 qua depositing of Will in the office of Registrar, Kullu by Ms.Kheki Devi. 20. PW-1 Smt.Kalpna Sharma, Registration Clerk in the office of Registrar, Kullu, deposed before the Court that as per record brought by her, there is/was entry in Register No.3 qua depositing of Will in the office of Registrar, Kullu by Ms.Kheki Devi. She also stated that after the death of Ms.Kheki Devi, plaintiff Loti Devi applied for the Will and after unsealing the sealed parcel, copy of Will was given to Kheki Devi and copy of the same was kept in the record. She further stated that Will Ex.PW-1/A was given to plaintiff Loti Devi by the office of Registrar. She also stated that perusal of Will dated 1.3.2002 Ex.PW-1/A suggests that the same was scribed by Chhavinder Thakur, Advocate and the same was attested by attesting witnesses; namely; Hukam Ram and Mehar Singh. 21. Plaintiff herself appeared as PW-2 and deposed before the Court that her father was owner of the suit land and Kheki Devi was her sister. It has also come in her statement that Kheki Devi used to live with her during her life time and she executed Will Ex.PW-1/A bequeathing there by whole property in her favour. She also stated that Will Ex.PW-1/A was deposited in the office of Registrar, Kullu and she was also taken by her sister. Aforesaid witness also stated that after death of deceased Kheki Devi, her son performed her last rites and since then she is in possession of the suit land. 22. PW-3 Chhavinder Thakur, Advocate Scribe of the Will Ex.PW-1/A stated before the Court that Will Ex.PW-1/A was got scribed from him by Kheki Devi and he read-over the contents of the same to Kheki Devi, who, after admitting the same to be correct, appended her thumb impression. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not recognize Kheki Devi personally. But, interestingly, submissions having been made by the plaintiff witnesses suggest that he stated before the Court that at the time of making statement, Kheki Devi was also sitting in the Court room. But, perusal of statement having been made by PW-3 clearly suggests that aforesaid witness was examined by the Court on 10.1.2006, whereas it is undisputed that deceased Kheki Devi had died on 10.6.2002. But, perusal of statement having been made by PW-3 clearly suggests that aforesaid witness was examined by the Court on 10.1.2006, whereas it is undisputed that deceased Kheki Devi had died on 10.6.2002. Hence, admission having been made by PW-3 Chhavinder Thakur in his cross-examination that Kheki Devi was present in the Court at the time of his making statement completely falsify the claim of the plaintiff qua valid execution of Will dated 1.3.2002 Ex.PW-1/A by deceased Kheki Devi. Since Kheki Devi had expired on 10.6.2002, there was no occasion for the aforesaid PW-3 to see Kheki Devi on 10.1.2006, which certainly suggests that at the time of execution of alleged Will deceased Kheki Devi was not present, rather some other woman was produced before him. 23. Similarly, PW-4 Mehar Singh and PW-5 Hukam Ram, who are alleged attesting witnesses, also not supported the case of the plaintiff. If the statements having been made by the aforesaid marginal and attesting witnesses are examined and read in its entirety, these nowhere suggest that Will Ex.PW-1/A was got scribed by Kheki Devi from PW- 3 Chhavinder Thakur, rather, it can easily be inferred that Will was got scribed by plaintiff Loti Devi. Both the aforesaid witnesses have categorically stated that they did not know Kheki Devi personally, rather, they were called by plaintiff Loti Devi to be witnesses of the Will Ex.PW-1/A. Aforesaid witnesses have also stated that they were informed by Loti Devi that Kheki Devi, her sister, was to execute Will in her favour and they put their signatures on the same by reposing faith on plaintiff Loti Devi. 24. Apart from above, perusal of the statements of plaintiff witnesses as referred hereinabove, nowhere suggests that they saw deceased Kheki Devi appending her thumb impression in their presence. None of these witnesses categorically stated that deceased Kheki Devi, after admitting the contents of the Will to be correct, appended her thumb impression in their presence and as such Courts below have rightly came to the conclusion that statements of PW-4 and PW-5 do not prove the due execution of Will dated 1.3.2002 Ex.PW-1/A. 25. Conjoint reading of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses nowhere suggests that plaintiff was successfully able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that Will Ex.PW-1/A was duly executed by Smt.Kheki Devi bequeathing thereby movable and immovable property in favour of the plaintiff. Conjoint reading of aforesaid plaintiff witnesses nowhere suggests that plaintiff was successfully able to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that Will Ex.PW-1/A was duly executed by Smt.Kheki Devi bequeathing thereby movable and immovable property in favour of the plaintiff. Rather, this Court, after carefully examining the statements having been made by the plaintiff witnesses, has no hesitation to conclude that Ex.PW-1/A was scribed at the behest of plaintiff Loti Devi. 26. Apart from above, alleged marginal witness stated before the Court that they had come at the place of scribing of Will at the behest of plaintiff, meaning thereby learned trial Court below rightly concluded that plaintiff Loti Devi took active part in the preparation of Will. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff placed much reliance upon statement of PW-1 i.e. Smt.Kalpana Sharma, Registration Clerk to demonstrate that Will in question being registered could not be ignored by the Courts below, but his afore said arguments deserves outright rejection solely for the reasons that bare perusal of statement of PW-1 nowhere proves execution of Will, if any, by Smt.Kheki Devi. True, it is that PW-1 in her statement stated that there is/was entry with regard to depositing of Will in the office of Registrar by Kheki Devi, but as has been observed above, there is no convincing evidence suggestive of the fact that Will in question Ex.PW-1/A was actually executed by Smt.Kheki Devi in favour of plaintiff. Aforesaid witness though has stated that Will in question was deposited in the office of Registrar, Kullu by Kheki Devi, but she has nowhere stated that at the time of depositing of Will somebody identified Kheki Devi, who allegedly deposited the Will in the office of Sub Registrar, Kullu. Since, this Court after carefully examining the version put forth by PW-3 Chhavinder Thakur, Scribe of the Will, has also come to the conclusion that execution of Will Ex.PW-1/A is wholly doubtful, especially in view the admission made by PW-3 in his cross-examination, which was made on 10.1.2006 that Smt.Kheki Devi was present in the Court at the time of making statement, no much reliance can be placed upon statement of PW-1, who otherwise referred to be as official witness. 27. 27. Leaving everything aside, this Court was unable to find reference, if any, in the statement of aforesaid plaintiff witness with regard to marital status of Smt.Kheki Devi who, as per plaintiff was unmarried, during her life time. Since defendant No.1, by way of written statement, claimed himself to be legally wedded husband of deceased Smt.Kheki Devi, onus was definitely upon plaintiff to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that Kheki Devi was not legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. But, interestingly, none of the plaintiff witnesses stated anything with regard to marriage, if any, of Kheki Devi with defendant No.1. In this view of the matter, this Court sees that there was sufficient evidence on record that Will Ex.PW-1/A, dated 1.3.2002, allegedly executed by Smt.Kheki Devi in favour of plaintiff, was shrouded by suspicious circumstances and as such onus was upon the plaintiff being propounder of the Will to dispel such suspicious circumstances. But perusal of evidence led on record clearly suggests that plaintiff was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Will Ex.PW-1/A was free from suspicion. 28. On the other hand, defendant No.1 successfully proved execution of Will dated 8.6.2002, Ex.DW-2/A executed by Kheki Devi in his favour bequeathing thereby her entire property in favour of defendant No.1. 29. DW-2 Gokul Chand, Scribe of the Will dated 8.6.2002 specifically stated that plaintiff Loti Devi is his grandmother in relation. He specifically stated that Will Ex.DW-2/A was scribed by him at the instance of Kheki Devi and he read-over the contents of the same to Kheki Devi, who, after admitting the contents of the Will to be correct, appended her thumb impression on the Will in the presence of witnesses. At the time of execution of aforesaid Will, mental position of Kheki Devi was well and Kheki Devi executed the Will in favour of her husband Balak Ram and witnesses put their signatures on the Will at the instance of Kheki Devi. If statements of aforesaid witness is read in its entirety, it also suggest that Kheki Devi was married to defendant No.1 in the year 1977 and since then they used to reside as husband and wife. He also stated that after death of Kheki Devi, her last rites were performed by defendant No.1 Balak Ram and plaintiff did not do anything. He also stated that after death of Kheki Devi, her last rites were performed by defendant No.1 Balak Ram and plaintiff did not do anything. In his cross-examination DW-2 specifically denied that due to illness, Kheki Devi was not able to remember anything. But, interestingly, there is no suggestion, if any, put to this witness with regard to marital status of Kheki Devi, who, as per plaintiff, remained unmarried throughout her life, meaning thereby assertion put forth by plaintiff witness in examination-in-chief remained un-rebutted where he specifically stated that Kheki Devi was married with defendant No.1 and since then they used to reside as husband and wife. 30. DW-3 Chaman Lal, attesting witness of the Will dated 8.6.2002 Ex.DW-2/A, also corroborated the version put forth by DW-2 with regard to due execution of Will dated 8.6.2002 and stated that he was earlier Up-Pradhan and he recognized Kheki Devi, who was wife of Balak Ram. He also stated that Kheki Devi executed Will Ex.DW-2/A in favour of Balak Ram. He also stated that Will was scribed by DW-2 Gokul Chand at the instance of Kheki Devi, who, after admitting the contents of the same to be correct, appended her thumb impression upon the said Will. Similarly, there is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness from where it can be inferred that plaintiff was able to shatter the testimony of aforesaid witness, rather, careful perusal of statements having been made by DW-2 and DW-3 prove beyond reasonable doubt that Will Ex.DW-2/A was executed by Smt.Kheki Devi in favour of defendants. 31. Similarly, aforesaid witnesses clearly proved on record that Smt.Kheki Devi was legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and they were married in the year 1977 and since then they had been residing together. 32. Defendant No.1 Balak Ram, while appearing as DW-1, also corroborated the version put forth by him in his written statement and specifically stated that he was married to deceased Kheki Devi in the year 1977 and since then they had been residing together. He also stated that deceased Kheki Devi executed Will Ex.DW-2/A in his favour. Close scrutiny of statement of DW-1 also clearly proves on record that marriage of Kheki Devi daughter of Uttam Chand was solemnized with defendant No.1 in the year 1977, according to the local custom and since then they had been residing at village Gushal. He also stated that deceased Kheki Devi executed Will Ex.DW-2/A in his favour. Close scrutiny of statement of DW-1 also clearly proves on record that marriage of Kheki Devi daughter of Uttam Chand was solemnized with defendant No.1 in the year 1977, according to the local custom and since then they had been residing at village Gushal. This Court also carefully examined the cross-examination, conducted on this witness, perusal whereof suggests that he has not stated anything contrary what he has deposed in his examination-in-chief. Similarly, this Court sees no suggestion, if any, with regard to marital status of defendant No.1 as well as Smt.Kheki Devi, meaning thereby that version put forth by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 with regard to marriage of Smt.Kheki Devi remained unrebuted and as such both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that Smt.Kheki Devi was legally wedded wife of defendant No.1. 33. Hence, after carefully examining the pleadings as well as evidence led on record, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that defendants have successfully proved on record that deceased Kheki Devi had executed Will dated 8.6.2002 Ex.DW-2/A, bequeathing her entire property in sound disposing state of mind in favour of defendant No.1. Since Will dated 8.6.2002 Ex.DW-2/A stands duly proved to be executed by deceased Kheki Devi in favour of defendant No.1 qua her property, there is no illegality, if any, can be found with the Mutation No.3158 dated 29.6.2002 because suit land was inherited by defendant No.1 Balak Ram on the basis of Will Ex.DW-2/A and he had become owner in possession of the suit land and as such there is no illegality, if any, of further sale made by him in favour of defendant No.2. 34. This Court, after perusing evidence led on record by the defendant, has no hesitation to conclude that defendant was able to prove on record that Will Ex.DW-2/A was duly executed by late Smt.Kheki Devi in his favour in sound disposing state of mind. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 12 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:— (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the 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. (c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” “Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872” “68 Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.—If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: 1[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]” 35. Perusal of aforesaid provision clearly suggests that for valid attestation of Will, it must be proved that Will was attested by at least two witnesses and each of these witnesses must either see the testator signing or affixing his mark on the Will or it shall be signed by some other person, in their presence, on the direction of testatrix. Similarly, these witnesses must receive from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark or the signature of such other person. Apart from above, these witnesses must sign Will in the presence of the testator. 36. This Court is fully satisfied that both the Courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever, in the present matter. Since both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings, which otherwise appears to be based upon proper appreciation of evidence, this Court has very limited jurisdiction/scope to interfere in the matter. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the relevant contents of judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmidevamma’s case supra, wherein the Court has held as under: “16. Based on oral and documentary evidence, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have established their right in A schedule property. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial questions of law arose in the High Court and there was no substantial ground for re-appreciation of evidence. While so, the High Court proceeded to observe that the first plaintiff has earmarked the A schedule property for road and that she could not have full-fledged right and on that premise proceeded to hold that declaration to the plaintiffs’ right cannot be granted. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, concurrent findings of fact cannot be upset by the High Court unless the findings so recorded are shown to be perverse. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 37. In our considered view, the High Court did not keep in view that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, are based on oral and documentary evidence and the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained.” (p.269) 37. In view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciation of evidence, be it ocular or documentary, adduced on record. Similarly, this Court sees no reason to differ with the findings returned by the Courts below that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that a valid will has been executed in her favour by Smt.Kheki Devi. Therefore, substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 38. Consequently, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgments passed by both the learned Courts below and as such the same do not warrant any interference by this Court, moreover, as has been discussed in detail hereinabove, appellant-plaintiff was not able to make out her case to persuade this Court that Will Ex.DW-2/A is fake and fictitious document procured by the defendant by undue influence. Similarly, this Court, after perusing the evidence led on record by the plaintiff, was unable to see any circumstance which could compel this Court to return the findings that Will Ex.DW-2/A is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. Hence present appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly. 39. All the interim orders are vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.