JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts by both the learned Courts below, whereby, the plaintiff's suit for rendition, of, a decree for declaration, as well as for, rendition of a decree for possession qua the suit khasra number(s), was, hence decreed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and possession against the defendant on the averments that the land comprised in Khata No.19 min, Khatauni No.41 min., Khasra Nos. 135 and 136, kita 2, measuring 0-09-65 HM, Khata No.20 min, Khatauni No.42 min, khasra No.233, measuring 0-00-87 HM, Khata No.21 min, Khatauni Nos. 43, 44, 45, Khasra Nos. 276, 272, 273, 288, kita 4, measuring 0-63-76 HM, 1/8th share in Khata No.22, Khatauni Nos. 46, 47, Khasra Nos. 249, 215, kita 2, measuring 0-65-49 HM, 54/74 share, situated in Mohal and Mauza Galore, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94 was previously owned and possessed by deceased Ratnu, who had inherited the suit property vide mutation No.40. It is averred that deceased Ratnu was old and illiterate person and not conversant with the affairs of the world and she was unmarried and due to illness died on 1.2.1997, leaving behind the plaintiff, his nephew as only legal heir. The plaintiff is said to be deceased Ratnu's sister's son. It is averred that the plaintiff has brought up the deceased from the very beginning, as the parents of the plaintiff had expired when he was five years old and plaintiff used to look after Ratnu. It is further averred that the plaintiff being the only legal representative of deceased Ratnu is entitled to inherit his entire estate. It is submitted that the defendant has no concern with the suit land as she is not related to deceased Ratnu. It is alleged that at the time of death, the plaintiff was not at home and on coming to know about the death of deeased Ratnu, plaintiff immediately come to his home to perform the last rites. It is submitted that the defendant has no concern with the suit land as she is not related to deceased Ratnu. It is alleged that at the time of death, the plaintiff was not at home and on coming to know about the death of deeased Ratnu, plaintiff immediately come to his home to perform the last rites. It is avered that at the time of death, Ratnu was ill for long time and lost all strength of body and mind and was unfit to give detail of property and was not of sound disposing state of mind and he never executed any Will. It is alleged that after some days from the death of deceased Ratnu, defendant proclaimed that she has got the Will from deceased Ratnu in her favour just one day before his death and she will inherit the entire estate of deceased Ratnu. It is alleged that, the defendant has forged Will which was got executed in connivance with the marginal witnesses and the same is null and void and in effective on the rights of the plaintiff and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and there was no occasion for Ratnu to execute the Will in favour of the defendant, who never resided with him nor rendered services during his life time. Hence the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, non joinder of necessary parties and concealment of material facts. On merits, the ownership and possession of Ratnu till death has been admitted. It is admitted that Ratnu was illiterate and bachelor and the rest facts have been denied. It is alleged that deceased Ratnu during his life time on 31.1.1997 executed a Will in favour of the defendant before the Sub Registrar, Nurpur in presence of Jai Chand, Namberdar and Man Singh, which was scribed by Shri Mangat Ram, Petition Writer. It is denied that the respondent was brought up by the defendant. It is further denied that the plaintiff looked after Ratnu and rendered services to him, during his life time. It is further alleged that the deceased was being looked after by the defendant, who happens to be his cousin and out of love and affection and services rendered, the deceased executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant. It is further denied that the plaintiff looked after Ratnu and rendered services to him, during his life time. It is further alleged that the deceased was being looked after by the defendant, who happens to be his cousin and out of love and affection and services rendered, the deceased executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant. It is further denied that the plaintiff is the legal heir of Ratnu. It is alleged that the plaintiff was in the village, when Ratnu died and the plaintiff never rendered services to the deceased. It is further alleged that after the death of Ratnu, defendant perform all the rituals of deceased and went to Haridwar. It is further alleged that at the time of execution of the Will, deceased was in senses, without any fear and pressure. It is alleged that the suit land was earlier being cultivated by her husband and they rendered services towards deceased during his life time. It is denied that the will is a forged document, executed in connivance with the witnesses. It is further denied that the property of the deceased was predominantly agriculturist and governed by the Kangra customary law. It is denied that the power of alienation of ancestral property was restricted. It is alleged that the suit land was not joint Hindu ancestral property. It is alleged that the possession of the suit property was already with the defendant during the life time of deceased and mutation has now been attested on the basis of registered Will. 4. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made 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 plaintiff is the only legal heir of deceased Ratnu and is entitled to inherit his estate, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the Will dated 31.1.1997 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Ratnu in favour of the defendant is forged and fraudulent document, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether deceased Ratnu executed a legal and genuine Will in a sound state of mind on 31.1.1997, in favour of the defendant? OPD. 2. Whether the Will dated 31.1.1997 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Ratnu in favour of the defendant is forged and fraudulent document, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether deceased Ratnu executed a legal and genuine Will in a sound state of mind on 31.1.1997, in favour of the defendant? OPD. 4(a).Whether the parties are governed by the Kangra Customary law, if so, its effect? ODP. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the defendant/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein he assails 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 11.7.2007, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the Court below that the execution of the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances, which has not been explained or there existed suspicious circumstances are sustainable in law when good reasons have been given to prove on record that the plaintiff never resided with the uncle and never served him. Services were rendered by the defendant, the will had been executed in her favour which was duly registered? 2. Whether the alleged suspicious circumstances, the execution of the Will stood explained and the due execution of the Will in accordance with section 59 of the Indian Succession Act stood proved in the facts and circumstances of the case? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 8. Deceased testator one Ratnu, under, a testamentary disposition borne in Ex. DW5/A, bequeathed his properties vis-a-vis the legatee named therein. Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 2: 8. Deceased testator one Ratnu, under, a testamentary disposition borne in Ex. DW5/A, bequeathed his properties vis-a-vis the legatee named therein. For Ex.DW5/A, to acquire a pervasive aura of validity, the legatee constituted thereunder also the propounder thereof, was hence, enjoined to adduce cogent proof, in satiation of 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.” Whereupon alone the Will, can be constituted to be validly and duly executed by the deceased testator. The plaintiff does not contest, the validity of the thumb impression, of the deceased testator, occurring on Ex.DW5/A. He contends through his counsel that there is evident, want, of satiation(s) of the statutory ingredients, encapsulated in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (I) and, for erecting the aforesaid submission, he has alluded to the testification, occurring in the examination-in-chief, of one of the marginal witness to Ex.DW5/A, wherein, he discloses of deceased Ratnu, not, appending his signatures/thumb impressions in his presence, (ii) thereupon, he makes a further submission of all the statutory requirement(s), borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, of the deceased testator, thumb marking or appending his signatures on Ex.DW5/A in the presence of marginal witnesses thereof, and, thereafter the marginal witness thereto, doing also likewise, is grossly amiss. (iii) Thereupon, with the testimony of DW- 2, a marginal witness hence not carrying the innate nuance, of, his thumb marking or appending his signatures on Ex.DW5/A, carrying the requisite animus attestandi, hence, renders it to be ridden with an evidentiary infirmity. However, aforesaid submission is anvilled upon, a fragment reading, of, the testimony of DW-2, occurring, in the fag end of his examination-inchief, (iv) whereas, it would enjoy vigour, only, when it is read in conjunction with the testification prior thereto, rendered, by DW-2 also when it is read in conjunction, with, the testification of another marginal witness, to Ex.DW5/A, who testified as DW-3, (v) besides upon its being read in conjunction with the testification of scribe, of Ex.DW5/A, who testified as DW-5. In other words, a combined reading, of the testifications, of the aforesaid witness, would, be imperative, for concluding, whether, the afore referred fragmentary deposition occurring in fag end of the examination-in-chief of DW-2, is, hence imbued with any probative vigour or not. 9. Initially, the reading of the testification, of, DW-2 occurring in his examination-in-chief, especially, the echoings, made by DW-2 prior to, his, at the fag end, of his, examination-in-chief, making, the aforesaid voicing, does make a display of deceased testator Ratnu, thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, in the presence of DW-2, whereafter, the latter also proceeded, to, in the presence of the deceased testator, hence append his signature(s) thereon. The afore referred testification rendered by DW-2, pointedly prior to, his, at the fag end of his examination-in-chief, making, an articulation of deceased testator Ratanu, not thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, in his presence, rather does enhance an inference of DW-2, proving his carrying the requisite necessary animus attestandi or his proving the statutory mandatory ingredients of Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, (i) of his seeing the deceased testator thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, and, thereafter his doing likewise in the presence of the deceased testator, (ii) importantly when thereafter he continues to testify of the Will, being presented, for, registration before the registrar concerned, who after ascertaining, from deceased testator Ratnu, the trite factum of his comprehending the contents of Ex.DW5/A, his making an endorsement to this effect thereon, (iii) hence when subsequent thereto at the fag end, of his examination-in-chief, DW-2 testifies of the deceased testator in his presence not thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, his testification, is construable to be not appertaining to the pre-registration stage or to the stage when, after, the deceased testator in the presence of DW- 2, as voiced by DW-2, appending his thumb impression(s) on Ex.DW5/A, in his presence, DW-2 subsequent thereto also appending his signature(s) thereon, (iv) testification whereof when necessarily satiate(s) the indispensable statutory requirement qua at the time contemporaneous to, the execution of Ex.DW5/A, rather DW-2 seeing the deceased testator, thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, and, thereafter, the latter also proceeding to append his signature(s) thereon. In other words, if, at the stage subsequent, to the proven completed valid execution of Ex.DW5/A, and, at the stage of its presentation for registration, hence, DW-2, is reticent qua the deceased testator thumb marking Ex.DW5/A, in his presence, no conclusion can be galvanized, of DW-2, not carrying the requisite animus attestandi nor any conclusion can be erected, that, the requisite indispensable statutory tenets enjoining satiation, only at the stage of execution of Ex.DW5/A, hence, not begetting their apposite satiation (a) conspicuously, when at the stage of Ex.PW5/A being presented for registration, it being neither incumbent nor statutorily mandated, qua thereon the attesting witnesses being enjoined to also make evincings, of the deceased testator, in their presence thumb marking Ex.DW5/A or subsequent thereto, any marginal witness, in the presence of the deceased testator, making the relevant thumb markings or signatures thereon. More so, when the act, of, execution of Will, is distinguishable, from, the statutory act, of its registration, besides, when even an unregistered Will enjoys validity, if it is proven to be validly and duly, executed, upon its provenly satiating the ingredients borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, ingredients whereof stand here at fully proven. 10. Be that as it may, the other marginal witness to Ex.DW5/A while testifying as DW-3, has, in his testification, made echoings of the deceased testator thumb marking the Will in his presence, and, thereafter his appending his signatures thereon. He has also in corroboration, to the testification of DW-2, made echoings, that, at the stage of execution of Ex.DW5/A by deceased testator, both DW-2 and he being present, thereupon, it is apt to conclude that at the pre registration stage qua Ex.DW5/A being proven to be validly and duly executed, conspicuously within the domain of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Added momentum tot he aforesaid inference is garnered by the scribe, of Ex.DW5/A, who stepped into the witness box, as DW-4, making testification in corroboration, to the testification of DW-2 and DW-3, thereupon, it is apt to conclude of the isolated fragmentary deposition, of DW-2 solitarily appertaining, to the stage of presentation, of Ex.DW5/A, for its registration before the Sub Registrar concerned, not being either read nor being construable, to invalidate the consistent testimonies, of, DW-2, DW-3, and, of DW-5, qua thereat, it standing proven to be duly and validly executed, and, whereat both the marginal witnesses thereto, evidently, held the requisite animus attestandi. 11. Furthermore, a close reading, of, the cross-examinations of DW-2, DW-3 and DW-5, underscores of no suggestions being put to them of the beneficiary or witnesses thereto, exerting undue influence upon the deceased testator nor any affirmative echoings in respect thereto, hence emanated from the aforesaid witnesses nor the plaintiff has endeavoured to rebut the authenticity, of, the thumb impression of deceased testator occurring on Ex.DW5/A, hence rendering them to enjoy conclusive authenticity. 12. The deceased testator died, a day subsequent to the execution and registration of Ex.DW5/A, thereupon, it is contended of the deceased testator, being not, possessed of enlivened cognitive faculties, rather his being not in a sound disposing state of mind. 12. The deceased testator died, a day subsequent to the execution and registration of Ex.DW5/A, thereupon, it is contended of the deceased testator, being not, possessed of enlivened cognitive faculties, rather his being not in a sound disposing state of mind. However, the endorsement of the Sub Registrar concerned, occurring on Ex.DW5/A and its making echoings of, after the Sub Registrar concerned, ascertaining the comprehensibility of the deceased testator vis-a-vis the contents borne in Ex.DW5/A, his thereafter proceeding to make the apposite endorsement thereon, hence negates besides blunts any inference of the deceased testator, not being possessed of a sound disposing state of mind, dehors, the fact that on the day subsequent to the execution and registration of Ex.DW5/A, his leaving for his heavenly abode. Though, the plaintiff, had, the opportunity to bely the authenticity of the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar concerned, upon Ex.DW5/A, yet he omitted to make any concert to this effect, (a) omissions to make the relevant concert(s), for belying the authenticity, of endorsement, occurring on Ex.DW5/A, rather constrains a conclusion of an aura of authenticity acquired by the endorsement borne in Ex.DW5/A, rather getting enhanced, (b) besides its acquiring conclusivity, hence rendering open a firm conclusion of the deceased testator, being possessed of a sound disposing state of mind. 13. Since, the beneficiary of Ex.DW5/A, is apparently not related to the deceased testator, hence, when Ex.DW5/A, is hence an in officious Will or the legatee thereunder is a haeres extraneous, thereupon, the deceased testator constituting the defendant, as legatee thereunder, and, his excluding his natural heirs, the plaintiff herein, does arouse a grave suspicion, about the validity of the Will borne in Ex.DW5/A, dehors the afore stated inference(s) drawn by this Court. Even if, Ex.DW5/A is an in officious Will, yet with Ex.DW5/A making a disclosure, of, one Kamlesh Kumari, rendering services to the deceased testator, hence, his ingratiating the latter does prima facie, unfold of thereupon the deceased testator being inclined vis-a-vis the defendant, and, his excluding the plaintiff, from inheritance. However, even evidence in support of the aforesaid recitals, ought to emanate. A reading of the testification of DW4, underscores, the factum of the defendant, cultivating the suit land, and, of hers serving the deceased testator besides he has testified of the last rites of the deceased testator being performed by the defendant. However, even evidence in support of the aforesaid recitals, ought to emanate. A reading of the testification of DW4, underscores, the factum of the defendant, cultivating the suit land, and, of hers serving the deceased testator besides he has testified of the last rites of the deceased testator being performed by the defendant. The efficacy(ies) of the aforesaid echoings occurring in the testification of DW-4, though, stood concerted to be shred apart, by the counsel, for the plaintiff, while holding him to cross-examination, yet no evincings spurred, for, hence belying the testification occurring in the examination-in-chief, of DW-2. Also with the plaintiff not adducing any cogent affirmative proof, other than his self serving testimony, for repelling the testification of DW-4, and, most emphatically the omission of the plaintiff, to bely the testification of DW-4, of, the last rites of the deceased testator being performed by Kamlesh Kumari, by, his producing the relevant record maintained, at the ghats concerned, does garner, an inference of the defendant performing the last rites of deceased testator, wherefrom, it is apt to conclude of the plaintiff, not serving nor attending upon the deceased testator rather of the defendant serving or attending upon the deceased testator, hence, ingratiating the deceased testator to make a testamentary disposition in her favour. Consequently, any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Ex.DW5/A engendered by the deceased constituting the defendant, who is not related to him, as his legatee and, his excluding the plaintiff, his real nephew, hence come to be sufficiently dispelled. 14. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, being not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/defendant and against the respondent/plaintiff. 15. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside, and, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.