JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff, one Kaulan Devi (now deceased), the legally wedded wife of Jamita, instituted a declaratory suit along with consequential relief of injunction, wherein, she claimed the aforesaid relief(s), on the anvil qua, on demise, of, her husband one Jamita, hers being solitarily entitled to inherit her estate. The plaintiff''s suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, therefrom, the aggrieved plaintiff, hence preferred, a, first appeal before the learned First Appellate Court, whereon, the learned First Appellate Court, rendered a verdict hence decreeing the plaintiff''s suit. The defendants/appellants herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence concert to beget its reversal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that original deceased plaintiff on Kaulan Devi, in her suit, claimed that her husband Shri Jamita Ram and father of defendant No.3 Nirmala Devi, was owner in possession of the suit property, which after death of Jamita was held by her and defendant No.3 in equal shares. She along with defendant No.3 is the only legal heir of Jamita Ram to succeed his property after his death. But defendants No.1 and 2, on the basis of forged Will are trying to get the mutation sanctioned in their favour of the suit property possessed by the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and consequently, defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to be injuncted from causing interference in their possession. 3. Defendant No.2 did not contest the suit and proceeded against ex-parte before the learned trial Court. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has denied the entitlement of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 to succeed the suit property of Jamita, who died on 11.12.1979. It is claimed that he and his brother defendant No.2 succeeded the estate of Shri Jamita Ram vide registered Will of 20.02.1975 executed in their favour by Jamita Ram. Shri Jamita Ram executed Will in their favour for services rendered by them for more than 12 years, prior to his death. However, it is admitted that plaintiff was wife of Shri Jamita Ram, but claimed that she deserted Shri Jamita Ram since last 40 years before his death and had no matrimonial relations with him. Defendant NO.3, after her marriage never visited her father Shri Jamita Ram and had been living in the house of her maternal uncle. He claimed that Shri Jamita of his own on 20.2.1975 executed the Will. Defendant NO.3, after her marriage never visited her father Shri Jamita Ram and had been living in the house of her maternal uncle. He claimed that Shri Jamita of his own on 20.2.1975 executed the Will. Objections qua locus standi, maintainability, cause of action, limitation were also raised. 4. Defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement, wherein, she admitted the entire claim of the plaintiff. 5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant No.1, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether Will dated 20.02.1975 has been duly executed by late Jamita? OPD-1. 2. If, issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the said Will is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not within time? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to sue?OPD-1 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 7. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent(s) herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiff/respondent(s) herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now the defendants/appellant(s) herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 25.10.2002 admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellant(s), against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether in view of the fact that plaintiff Kaulan Devi had deserted and left the house of Jamita and Nirmala Devi had not visited him and Jamita was being looked after and maintained by the appellants where he died and who performed his last rites and obseques, the disinheritance of the near relations and participation by the appellants in the execution of the will could be termed as suspicious circumstances? 2. 2. Whether the findings of the learned District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence, pleadings of the parties and the basic document of title the will Exhibit DW2/A? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 9. The learned First Appellate Court, had, on a circumspect and thorough analysis of the evidence on record, hence therefrom culled, the hereinafter extracted, suspicious circumstances, rather surrounding the execution of Will, borne in Ex. DW2/A, (i) besides, with, no tangible explication, for erasing the apt suspicion(s), hence, shrouding the valid and due execution of Ex.DW2/A, hence, surging forth, (ii) thereupon, recorded a conclusion qua Ex.DW2/A being not amenable, to, a conclusion, of it, being proven to stand validly and duly executed, by the deceased testator; "(i) The will Ex.DW2/A containing false recital that defendants No.1 and 2 are brother of the testator; (ii) signature of so called attesting witness Rasila Ram at two places out of which one was deleted by cutting and no explanation was given as to why at such place sign was taken. (iii) legatee Kashmir Singh took active part in getting the Will executed who called the witnesses, remained present at the time of execution and he was in a position to dominate the testator; (iv) No reason to deprive the natural heirs from inheritance, especially when Jamita was in visiting terms with plaintiff; (v) The testator in routine had been appending signature but the will contained thumb mark." 10. The suspicious circumstance, occurring at serial No.1 supra , is apparently grooved, in, the apt best documentary evidence, comprised in the apposite pedigree table, appertaining, to, the deceased testator Jamita, and, as, borne in Ex.PX, wherein stand echoed, (a) pointed, and, clear reflections, of, the defendants, not, holding any relationship as brothers of the deceased testator, (b) thereupon, the recitals in Ex.DW2/A, qua the legatees therein, standing, related to the deceased testator, as, brothers, is, per se false, and, also cast, a, critical shadow of doubt, vis-a-vis, the valid and due execution, of, Ex.DW2/A by its executant. 11. 11. In so far, as, the purported suspicious circumstance occurring at serial No.3 supra , is concerned, the propounder of Ex.DW2/A, in his deposition, has made a clear echoing, qua his arranging, for, marginal witnesses, vis-a-vis, execution, of, Ex.DW2/A, (a) besides he acquiesces qua the factum, of the deceased testator being under his influence, and, the latter agreeing to all his suggestions. Imminent, sequel thereof, is qua the Will of the deceased testator, being dominated, by the legatee(s) of Ex.DW2/A, (b) thereupon, it is inevitable to conclude qua Ex.DW2/A, being not volitionally executed by the deceased testator, rather its execution being a sequel, of, undue influence being exerted upon him by defendant Kashmir Singh. Furthermore, even if the deceased testator, stood, pleased with rendition of services, qua him, by one Kashmir Singh, and, hence chose to bestow his estate upon him, (c) besides when his wife, the plaintiff herein one Kaulan Devi, even if, she purportedly abandoned his company, and, hers hence invited, his wrath, whereupon, he stood constrained to disinherit her, rather would per se, not, constitute any suspicious circumstance, hence shrouding the execution of Ex.DW2/A, (d) especially with the plaintiff making a candid testification qua hers, enjoying a healthy relationship with her husband, and, also hers serving him, and, with the aforesaid testification, gathering succor, from, the testifications, of PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, and, PW-6, (e) thereupon, it is to be concluded qua dehors Kaulan Devi, though being constrained to take care of her parents, given hers being, their only off spring, besides her deceased husband Jamita, for want of hers rearing any children, from her womb, his contracting a second marriage, and, also when she testifies, of, her parental home being located, at a distance of one kilometer, from, the abode of Jamita, her deceased husband, (f) thereupon, all the aforesaid constraints hence evidently leading her to rather separate, from the matrimonial company of her husband, are, hence construable, to be tangible, thereupon, obviously they do not constitute a valid, and, sound reason, for hers standing disinherited by one Jamita, (g) especially, when her deposition aforestated corroborated, by PWs concerned, cogently establishes, of, hers also maintaining healthy relations with her deceased husband, and, hers making intermittent visits to her matrimonial abode. Consequently, with there being no clear cogent evidence, in display, of, abysmal disservice, of, the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, her deceased husband, hence, leading the latter, to, purportedly disinherit her, even though, she was his legally wedded wife, and, even though one Kashmir Singh may have appeasingly served, the, deceased testator, during the latter''s last days, (h) yet when the aforesaid falsity, rather ingrains, the apposite recitals occurring in Ex.DW2/A, besides, with the execution, of, Ex.DW2/A not stemming, from, the pure volition of the deceased testator, rather its execution, stemming, from one Kashmir Singh, as acquiesced by him, arranging for marginal witnesses thereto, besides with his acquiescing qua the deceased testator being under his influence, and, his also agreeing to all his proposals, reiteratedly, thereupon the execution, of, Ex.DW2/A is to be concluded, to remain unengendered, from, any purely exercised volitional act, of, the deceased testator. 12. The deceased testator, has, purportedly thumb marked Ex.DW2/A, and, the thumb marking of Ex.DW2/A by the deceased testator, has been concluded, to be a suspicious circumstance, (i) given PW-3 proving qua Ex.PW3/A being signatured by deceased testator, hence, the thumb marking of Ex.DW2/A, by the deceased testator, does natrually spark a suspicious circumstance, (ii) unless the propounder thereof had proven qua the deceased testator during his life time also being leaned towards thumb marking document(s). However, the aforesaid apt document remained unadduced, consequently, the purported thumb marking, upon, Ex.DW2/A, by the deceased testator, is, a, well nursed suspicious circumstance, surrounding, its, due and valid execution, and, when it remained unexplicated, hence it galvanizes a firm conclusion of Ex.DW2/A, being not proven, to be validly and duly executed. 13. Preeminently, the propounder of Ex.DW2/A, was enjoined to adduce cogent evidence, in proof, qua satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, all the ingredients borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "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." (I) especially, vis-a-vis, Ex.DW2/A being proven, by the apt testifications, rendered by the marginal witnesses thereto, to be thumb marked, in their presence, by the deceased testator, and, each of them or one of them, also making testification(s), qua thereafter one or the other also, in the presence, of the deceased testator, also, embossing their relevant thumb marks or signatures thereon. The rendition of the aforesaid testification(s), by the marginal witnesses, to Ex.DW2/A, was, a peremptory statutory requirement, for, hence this Court, being constrained to conclude, dehors, the aforesaid suspicious circumstances, surrounding its execution, qua rather Ex.DW2/A, being statutorily proven to be validly, and, duly executed, by its executant. However, none of the apt marginal witnesses, stepped into the witness box, rather DW-6 stepped into the witness box, to prove the signatures of one Rasila Ram, the, marginal witness to Ex.DW2/A. Consequently, with no apt emanation(s) surging forth, qua, satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the imperative statutory ingredients aforesaid, nor hence it can be concluded qua Ex.DW2/A standing cogently proven to be validly, and, duly executed by its executant. Even the scribe of the Will was dead, at the time, of, the suit progressing upto the stage, of, evidence being adduced, on, the relevant issue, rather his son one Sukhwant Singh stepped into the witness box, as DW-2 to prove the signatures, of, his father Moti Ram, the scribe of Ex.DW2/A, hence, occurring thereon. Even the scribe of the Will was dead, at the time, of, the suit progressing upto the stage, of, evidence being adduced, on, the relevant issue, rather his son one Sukhwant Singh stepped into the witness box, as DW-2 to prove the signatures, of, his father Moti Ram, the scribe of Ex.DW2/A, hence, occurring thereon. However, his testification is insignificant, for concluding qua satiation being begotten, of, the imperative statutory ingredients, borne, in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act. Even if, assumingly, the marginal witnesses to Ex.DW2/A, were not alive at the time, of the suit progressing, upto, the stage of evidence being adduced on the relevant issue, yet with Ex.DW2/A being a registered document, thereupon, it is incumbent, upon, the defendants to examine the apt Registering Officer, besides to lead into the witness box, the, identifier of deceased Jamita, (i) whereupon, the non stepping(s) into the witness box of the marginal witnesses to Ex.DW2/A, and, of scribe thereof, may stand cured. However, neither the defendants made any endeavour, to ensure qua the registering officer concerned, hence, steps into the witness box, to hence prove the apt endorsement, upon, Ex.DW2/A, as, made by him, nor the defendants made any endeavour, to, ensure the stepping into the witness box, of the purported identifier, of the executant. Consequently, the effect of the aforesaid omissions, when for all reasons aforesaid, the, peremptory statutory requirement, borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, remains unsatiated, is qua the defendants, the purported legatees of Ex.DW2/A, abysmally failing to adduce trite proof, qua, Ex.DW2/A, being validly and duly executed, by its executant. 14. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court being based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents/plaintiff(s) against the appellants/ defendants. 15. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgement and decree rendered by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 119- G/XIII/2000 is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.