JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Deceased appellant Bhagat Ram was defendant in this case. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 83-P/XIII/2000, he is in second appeal before this Court. As a matter of fact, learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 4.4.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 33/96 has decreed the suit filed by the respondents herein, plaintiffs in the trial Court. They were declared as owners-in-possession in equal share of the land comprising Khata No. 55, Khatauni No. 85-86, Kh. Kita 11, measuring 0-51-55 hectares situated in Mohal Tanda, Mouja Ghuggar, Tehsil Palampur and to the extent of 2/3rd share (1/3 each) qua the property entered in Khata No. 128, Khatauni Nos. 356 to 358, Kh. Kita 3, measuring 144-05 square meters, situated at Mohal Palampur Khas, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) on the basis of last “Will” Ext. PA executed by late Sh. Ishwar Dass, their predecessor-in-interest on 5.8.1985. The “Will” Ext. DW-2/A dated 30.12.1992 set up by the defendant was declared illegal, null and void, hence set aside. The defendant, by way of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, was restrained from causing any interference in the suit property. 2. The plaintiffs’ case, in a nut shell” is that they alongwith defendant are real brothers. Their father late Sh. Ishwar Dass had executed the “Will” Ext. PA on 5.8.1985 and thereby bequeathed the suit property exclusively in their favour whereas his other property situated at Jogindernagar in favour of the defendant. On the basis thereof, mutation Nos. 292 and 406 Exts. PC and PD, respectively, were sanctioned and attested in the presence of defendant. The defendant neither objected to the attestation of the mutation nor ever preferred any appeal against it before the competent authority. The plaintiffs, therefore, became owners-in- possession of the suit property to the extent of ½ share each and 2/3 share (1/3 each). The defendant who never objected to the attestation of the mutation of the suit property in their name in his presence on 2.6.1994 set up a forged and fictitious Will dated 30.12.1992 Ext. DW-2/A after the death of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, the testator by producing the same before Sub Registrar, Palampur for registration under Section(s) 40/41 of the Indian Registration Act. DW-2/A after the death of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, the testator by producing the same before Sub Registrar, Palampur for registration under Section(s) 40/41 of the Indian Registration Act. He knowing fully well that the mutation of the suit property was already attested and sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to the “Will” Ext. PA has not impleaded them parties in such proceedings and to the contrary it is only the general public added as respondent. On the basis of “Will” Ext. DW- 2/A dated 30.12.1992, the defendant started proclaiming that the suit property should have devolved upon both the parties in equal shares on the death of the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass. Subsequently, he even started causing interference also in the suit property and also initiated the proceedings to review the order of mutation already passed in their favour in his presence. The plaintiffs, therefore, had filed the suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners-in-possession in equal share of the suit property and “Will” Ext. DW-2/A dated 30.12.1992 being forged and fictitious document is not binding on them. The same, as such, was sought to be declared as null and void being the outcome of fraud and forgery. The review order, if any, of the mutation numbers 292 and 406 already attested in favour of the plaintiffs was also sought to be declared illegal, null and void. Additionally, by way of decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, the defendant was sought to be restrained from causing any interference in any manner, whatsoever, in the suit property. 3. The defendant, when put to notice, has resisted and contested the suit. In preliminary, he raised the issues so as to maintainability of the suit, estoppel, cause of action, locus standi to file the suit and the same being not valued properly for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. 4. On merits, it has been pleaded that late Sh. Ishwar Dass has executed a valid Will in favour of both the parties on 30.12.1992. The same was duly registered on 22.11.1994. While admitting that late Sh. Ishwar Dass had executed the gift deed in his favour qua the property situated at Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, it was further pleaded that Will dated 30.12.1992 is his last and final Will. Therefore, the earlier “Will” Ext. The same was duly registered on 22.11.1994. While admitting that late Sh. Ishwar Dass had executed the gift deed in his favour qua the property situated at Jogindernagar, Distt. Mandi, it was further pleaded that Will dated 30.12.1992 is his last and final Will. Therefore, the earlier “Will” Ext. PA dated 5.8.1985 stood automatically cancelled on the execution of the last and final Will dated 30.12.1992 Ext. DW-2/A. It is denied that “Will” Ext. DW-2/A is forged and fictitious document and executed by him in connivance with the scribe and marginal witnesses. It is also pleaded that since the Will dated 30.12.1992 remained lying with him at Jogindernagar, therefore, could not be produced earlier to 22.11.1994. Also that, the plaintiffs under the garb of the “Will” Ext. PA wants to grab the entire property at Ghuggar, Tanda and Palampur Khas and to deprive him therefrom. 5. The replication was also filed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : “(1). Whether property in dispute was owned and possessed by Ishwar Dass, prior to his death, as alleged? OPP. (2). Whether deceased Ishwar Dass has gifted the suit property of Tehsil Jogindernagar in favour of defendant vide gift deed dated 30.07.1985 and had bequeathed his property situated in Mohal Tanda Ghuggar and Mohal Palampur Khas, in favour of the plaintiff vide his will dated 05.08.1985, as alleged? OPP. (3). If issue No.2, is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property situated in Mohal Tanda Ghuggar and Mohal Palampur Khas,, as alleged? OPP. (4). Whether the will dated 30.12.1992, is forged and fraudulent alleged to be executed by the defendant after the death of his father Ishwar Dass in collusion with scribe and marginal witness as alleged, if so its effect? OPP. (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP. (6). Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged? OPD. (7). Whether the act and conduct of the plaintiff are bar to the present suit? OPD. (8). Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action? OPD. (9). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction?” OPD. (10). Whether deceased Ishwer Dass executed valid will dated 30.12.1992, as alleged? OPD. (11). Relief.” 7. OPD. (8). Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action? OPD. (9). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction?” OPD. (10). Whether deceased Ishwer Dass executed valid will dated 30.12.1992, as alleged? OPD. (11). Relief.” 7. Learned trail Court after holding full trial and affording the parties on both sides an opportunity of being heard, has decided issues No. 1 to 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 4, as is apparent from the perusal of the findings recorded thereon, has been answered in favour of the plaintiffs, however, below heading Reasons for findings “No.” came to be recorded inadvertently and on account of inadvertent mistake because the answer in view of the findings recorded on this issue should have also been in affirmative i.e. “Yes”. While issues No. 6 to 9 were not pressed, issue No. 10 was decided against the defendant. As a cumulative effect of the findings so recorded on all the issues, the suit has been decreed by learned trial Court as pointed out in this judgment at the very outset. The appeal preferred by the defendant has also been dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree under challenge in the present appeal. 8. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree has been assailed on the grounds inter alia that the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A having been duly proved by way of oral as well as documentary evidence and also as per the provisions contained under the Indian Succession Act and Indian Registration Act has erroneously been discarded by both the Courts below. The provisions contained under the Indian Succession Act and also the Indian Evidence Act as well as Indian Registration Act have been misconstrued, misinterpreted and mis-appreciated. The evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1 Roop Lal, DW-1 Bhagat Ram, DW-2 Shamsher Chand and DW-3 Bhagat Ram as well as documentary evidence Ext. PA and Ext. DW-2/A has also been misread, misconstrued and not appreciated in its right perspective. This, according to the defendant has resulted in miscarriage of justice to him. The impugned judgment, as such, has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 9. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. PA and Ext. DW-2/A has also been misread, misconstrued and not appreciated in its right perspective. This, according to the defendant has resulted in miscarriage of justice to him. The impugned judgment, as such, has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 9. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the proper construction and interpretation of the documents Ex. DW2/A the registered sale deed the presumption of validity executed Will revoking the previous will could be raised and whether the findings of the learned courts below are contrary to the facts and law? 2. Whether the learned courts below has misread and misconstrued the oral and documentary evidence, especially the statements of PW-1, DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3, Ext. PA registered Will dated 30.12.1992?” 10. The execution of the “Will” Ext. PA dated 5.8.1985 is not in any controversy because the defendant has also admitted the same having been executed by his father late Sh. Ishwar Dass. However, as per the case he set out, the same stood revoked automatically on execution of the last and final “Will” Ext. DW-2/A on 30.12.1992. The plaintiffs, however, have denied the execution of the same by the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass and according to them, the same rather is result of fraud and forgery. 11. While Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate representing the appellant-defendant has made an effort to persuade this Court to take the view of the matter that the “Will” Ext. DW- 2/A is a genuine document and executed by the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass and also that the execution of the Will in accordance with law is duly proved on record, Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiffs has urged that the same is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, hence, cannot be treated to be the last and final Will of late Sh. Ishwar Dass. Mr. Kuthiala, Advocate has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana & ors. Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & ors., (2005) 8 SCC 67, Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs vs. Vinod Kumar & ors., (2012) 4 SCC 387 and M.B. Ramesh (dead) by LRs vs. K.M. Veeraje URs (dead) by LRs. & ors., (2013) 7 SCC 490 . 12. In view of the claims and counter-claims, as laid on both sides, the suspicious circumstances by which “Will” Ext. & ors., (2013) 7 SCC 490 . 12. In view of the claims and counter-claims, as laid on both sides, the suspicious circumstances by which “Will” Ext. DW-2/A is stated to be shrouded reads as follows: “(i) When late Sh. Ishwar Dass, the testator has executed a legal and valid “Will” Ext. PA on 5.8.1985 without there being any reason in the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A qua revocation thereof, the subsequent Will is not genuine and rather forged and fictitious. (ii) In the disputed Will Ext. DW-2/A, the date of the Will revoked thereby does not find mention hence, the Will Ext. PA is in force. (iii) The scribe DW-2 Shamsher Chand has not produced the register to prove that the entries qua the execution of the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A were made therein after its execution. (iv) The non-production of the register and the entries qua execution of the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A therein show that the same was engineered and fabricated after the death of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, the scribe on 27.1.1993. (v) The date of the disputed “Will” Ext. DW-2/A as 30.12.1992 whereas that of death of the testator 27.1.1993 shows that he was not in sound disposing mind having been expired after few days of the execution of the said Will. (vi) The failure of the defendant to produce the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A on 2.6.1994 when the mutation was sanctioned and attested on the basis of the Will Ext. PA qua the suit property in his presence. (vii) The non-production of the disputed “Will” Ext. DW-2/A for a long period i.e. after 27.1.1993, the date of death of the testator till 2.6.1994 when produced for registration. (viii) When the earlier “Will” Ext. PA was a registered document why the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass had not opted for getting the subsequent “Will” Ext. DW-2/A also registered when as per the evidence available on record the Tehsil Office situated at a distance of was 60 yards away from the place where it was scribed. (ix) The testator has not made any provision in the Will Ext. DW-2/A for the benefit of his wife except for that if not maintained by his sons she could file a suit for maintenance against them also, makes the Will suspicious as no husband would prefer such type of arrangement for his wife after his death. 13. The substantial question of law at Sr. DW-2/A for the benefit of his wife except for that if not maintained by his sons she could file a suit for maintenance against them also, makes the Will suspicious as no husband would prefer such type of arrangement for his wife after his death. 13. The substantial question of law at Sr. No. 2 hereinabove has now to be considered in the light of the above suspicious circumstances by which the disputed “Will” Ext. DW-2/A is shrouded. 14. Both the Courts below have not only appreciated the facts of the case and the evidence available on record but also the law applicable in such a situation. It is well settled at this stage that the Will is a most solemn document as the same speaks only after the death of the testator and that too if produced in the Court, hence, the degree of proof should be high to prove the same. It is for the propounder of the Will to have removed all doubts and suspicious circumstances, if any. The defendant in order to prove “Will” Ext. DW-2/A has himself stepped into the witness-box as DW-1 and examined its scribe DW-2 Shamsher Chand whereas the attesting witness DW-3 Bhagat Ram. The non-production of the register by DW-2 Shamsher Chand who is a Petition/Document Writer and the entries qua execution of the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A made therein has rendered the execution of the Will highly doubtful. DW-2 Shamsher Chand who is working as Petition/Document Writer since 1996 would have been in the knowledge of production of such record in the Court to remove all doubts qua execution of a legal and valid Will. The Register being maintained by DW-2 Shamsher Chand was a material piece of evidence and since the same has not been proved, therefore, it can reasonably be believed that the Will was not scribed by him during the lifetime of the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass. The defendant-appellant has not disputed the factum of his father Ishwar Dass having property at Jogindernagar and Palampur. He has also not disputed the gift of the property situated at Jogindernagar executed by said Ishwar Dass in his favour. He has also not disputed the execution of the Will Ext. PA on 5.8.1985 qua the suit property by late Sh. Ishwar Dass in favour of the plaintiffs. How, on the basis of “Will” Ext. He has also not disputed the gift of the property situated at Jogindernagar executed by said Ishwar Dass in his favour. He has also not disputed the execution of the Will Ext. PA on 5.8.1985 qua the suit property by late Sh. Ishwar Dass in favour of the plaintiffs. How, on the basis of “Will” Ext. DW-2/A, it can be said that the “Will” Ext. PA stood revoked automatically is not understandable, that too when the disputed “Will” Ext. DW- 2/A was allegedly executed on 30.12.1992 and the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass died few days thereafter i.e. on 27.1.1993. When the previous “Will” Ext. PA was got registered by him in the office of Sub Registrar, it is not understandable as to why he opted for not getting the disputed Will Ext. PWQ-2/A also registered as the office of Sub Registrar was situated at a distance of 60 yards from the place where it was scribed. 15. Interestingly enough, mutation Nos. 292 and 406 in favour of the plaintiffs was attested on the basis of “Will” Ext. PA in the presence of the defendant. He neither raised any objection nor preferred appeal against the order of mutation. Not only this but had the disputed Will been executed on 20.12.1992 by late Sh. Ishwar Dass, he would have produced the same before the revenue authorities which had attested the mutation and objected to the sanction and attestation of the mutation on the basis of the Will Ext. PA. Admittedly, he, however, opted for not doing so and the explanation that the disputed Will was lying in his house at Jogindernagar is neither plausible nor reasonable. It is also not understandable as to why the Will was not produced before 2.6.1994 before the Sub Registrar for registration. It is surprising to note that a husband (late Ishwar Dass) would have not left his wife after his death at the mercy of his sons and rather should have made suitable provision qua her maintenance while executing the Will Ext. DW-2/A. It is, therefore, a suspicious circumstance that she was left in lurch to sue her sons in the event of they at some later stage failed to maintain her. 16. The trend of writing of the Will Ext. DW-2/A. It is, therefore, a suspicious circumstance that she was left in lurch to sue her sons in the event of they at some later stage failed to maintain her. 16. The trend of writing of the Will Ext. DW-2/A also makes it doubtful because on the first page and in the starting of second page, the spacing is wide whereas the same went on squeezing towards the end. Even the signatures of the attesting witnesses Ext. DW-3/A are on the margin of the second page. Had the Will been written during the lifetime of the testator, it should have been properly scribed by leaving proper space. While number of the first judicial paper used is 004317, it is 004293 of the second page. Both the papers, as such, are of different series. As a matter of fact, in the natural course both judicial papers of same series and continuity in number should have been used. This also is a suspicious circumstance as was rightly noted in its judgment by learned trial Court. 17. For all the reasons hereinabove, this Court is satisfied that both the courts below have appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record in its right perspective. Substantial question of law at Sr. No. 2 stands answered accordingly. 18. Now, if coming to the substantial question of law at Sr. No. 1, in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, since the “Will” Ext. DW-2/A has been held to be shrouded by suspicious circumstances, therefore, the same is not a genuine document nor the same can be believed to be last and final Will of the testator late Sh. Ishwar Dass by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the same cannot be taken to believe that on its execution the previous Will Ext. PA stood revoked automatically. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the Will Ext. PA alone is the last and final Will of the testator. The substantial question of law at Sr. No. 1 is also answered accordingly. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree is upheld, however, no orders as to costs.