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 besides for rendition of a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction, qua the suit khasra numbers, was, hence dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Smt. Mohro Devi, owner in possession of half share of the suit land entered in Khata No.71, Khatauni No.150 and 151, Khasra Nos. 976, 980, 979, 981, plots 4, land measuring 0-01-390 hectares, i.e. land measuring 0- 00-70 hectares, ½ share of land entered in Khata No.72, Khatauni Nos. 153 and 154, Khasra Nos. 969, 968, plots 2, land measuring 0-11-75 hectares, i.e. land measuring 0-05-87 hectares, ½ share of khata No.73, Khatauni No.155 and 156, khasra No. 960, 1428, 82, 338, 940, 945, 958, 959, 986, 1036, 1445, 381, 428, 429, 337, 942, 1154, 1436, 1446, 427, plots 21, land measuring 0-88-41 hectares, i.e. land measuring 0-44-20 hectares, including a house double storey, comprising of two rooms and Varanda in the ground floor and two rooms in the first floor and cowshed and ¼ share of land entered in Khata No.74 Khatauni Nos. 161, to 166, Khasra Nos. 1169, 1012, 1043, 1046, 1053, 1180, 1013, 1041, 1042, 1009, 1045, 1050, 1051, 1181, 1007, 1054, 1077, 1179, 1014, 1049, 1168, 1177, plot 22, land measuring 0-95-39 hectaresi.e. land measuring 0-23-85 hectares vide jamabandi for the year 1994-95, situated in Mohal Kaloond, Mauja Chachian, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It has been pleaded that deceased Smt. Mohro Devi wd/o Sh. Roomi Ram, r/o village Kaloond, Mauja Chachian, Teh. Rampur, District Kangra, H.P. is the wife of the plaintiffs' father/s brother. Smt. Mohro Devi had never executed any Will during her life time. The Will set up by the defendant of 2.4.1989, alleged to be executed by Mohro Devi, is the result of forgery and the same has been fabricated after the death of Smt. Mohro Devi by the defendant, in connivance with the marginal witnesses thereto. The alleged Will is not a genuine document and does not convey any right to the defendant. The alleged Will is not a genuine document and does not convey any right to the defendant. In case the execution of the Will is proved then the Will of 2.4.1989 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, deception on late Smt. Mohro Devi. The impression on the alleged Will showing the same as thumb impression of late Smt. Mohro Devi is in fact not the thumb impression of late Smt. Mohro Devi and the same is smudged one which cannot be conveniently compared or identified. Maintained that suit land in the hands of Smt. Mohro Devi was ancestral in nature and the plaintiff and Mohro Devi belonged to “Bhatt Gaddi” by caste and agriculturists by profession and are governed by Kangra custom in the matter of alienation, succession etc., and as such Smt. Mohro Devi ws not competent to execute any will of the suit property in favour of the defendant. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have inherited the suit property and as such are owners of the same. The defendant cannot acquire any right on the basis of the alleged forged and fabricated document. It is further alleged that the defendant on the strength of the alleged Will took forcible possession of the suit property in the month of May, 1989 and is continuing, as such, the possession of the defendant on the suit land is highly uauthorised and the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, she has taken preliminary objections inter alia locus standi, cause of action, valuation and estoppel etc. On merits, it was admitted that Mohro Devi happened to be owner in possession of the suit land and it was claimed that the plaintiffs are not the real brother etc., and had separated long back and not entitled to inherit Mohro Devi's estate. On merits, it was admitted that Mohro Devi happened to be owner in possession of the suit land and it was claimed that the plaintiffs are not the real brother etc., and had separated long back and not entitled to inherit Mohro Devi's estate. It is alleged that late Roomi Ram and Mohro Devi had no issue so they took defendant in adoption at the age of two years, i.e., factually and ritually adopted her as their daughter and is entitled to succeed her, and after the demise of Roomi Ram, Mohro Devi was looked after by the defendant, who not only looked-after the house holding affairs, but also cultivated her land and continued living with Mohro Devi, even after her marriage and when she fell ill, the defendant nursed and looked after her and in lieu of services, Mohro Devi executed a Will of 2.4.1989 in the presence of marginal witnesses including her real brother. Mohro Devi expired on 9.4.1989 and will was got registered after her death on 21.1.1997. It is claimed that the will is genuine one. The ancestral nature of the suit land had also been denied. The parties being governed by Kangra custom had also been disputed. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendant, wherein, they 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 plaintiffs have inherited the suit property, from Mohro Devi, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether parties are governed by agriculture custom which prohibits alienation by way of Will, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the suit property is ancestral, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP. 4. Whether Smt. Mohro Devi executed a valid Will in favour of the defendant, if so its effect? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by way of their act and conduct, as alleged? OPD. OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD. 7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by way of their act and conduct, as alleged? OPD. 8-A. Whether Smt. Mohro Devi deceased had adopted Smt. Salochana Devi as daughter and Smt. Salochana Devi is entitled to succeed the estate of deceased Mohro Devi, as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants 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 plaintiffs/appellants 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 8.7.2005, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in holding the property to be ancestral in hands of the testator by not agreeing to the findings returned by the Trial Court on Issue No.3? Was not it incumbent for the Lower Appellate Court to have given cogent reason, after appreciating the evidence and the documents, in not accepting the findings of the Trial Court? 2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has further committed grave error of law in not accepting the findings of the Trial Court on Issue NO.8-A which repelled the claim of adopting put forth by defendant-respondent? Was not it necessary for the Lower Appellate Court to have recorded its independent findings by taking into consideration the relevant pleadings, evidence and the law regarding the contentions of the Defendant-Respondent regarding the alleged adoption? 3. Was not it necessary for the Lower Appellate Court to have recorded its independent findings by taking into consideration the relevant pleadings, evidence and the law regarding the contentions of the Defendant-Respondent regarding the alleged adoption? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has further committed grave error of jurisdiction in not at all taking into consideration the question of applicability of Kangra custom, which is widely acclaimed and recognized, governing the respective rights of the parties, who were admittedly Gaddis and being members of Scheduled Tribe, thereby materially affecting the decision? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3: 8. Though this Court, had, admitted the instant Regular Second Appeal, on, 8.7.2005, upon the hereinabove extracted substantial questions of law, (i) nonetheless, before proceeding to make any adjudication thereon, this Court deems it fit, to satisfy its judicial conscience, whether the valid execution, of, the testamentary disposition propounded by the defendant, testamentary disposition whereof, is borne, in Ex.D-1, stands unflinchingly proven, and, also qua it satiating, the statutory ingredients, borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (ii) ingredients whereof, warrant, by adduction of clinching evidence, hence satiation qua (a) of Ex. D-1 being proven by marginal witnesses thereto, to be thumb marked, by the deceased testator, in their respective presence, (b) and, the marginal witnesses thereto, also making, vivid clear testifications, of theirs thereafter, in the presence of the deceased testator, also appending their thumb marks or signatures thereon. The marginal witnesses, to Ex. D-1, though, in their respective testifications adduced proof, in respect of execution, of, the apposite Will, hence, satiating the aforesaid statutory ingredients, and, also scribe thereto, deposes in unanimity thereto, (i) yet upon a close glance of EX. D-1, it is ex-facie apparent of thumb impressions, purportedly existing thereon, of the deceased testator, not rather visibly, carrying any decipherable thumb impressions, of, the deceased testator. Want of existence in Ex.D-1, of clear unsmudged thumb impressions, of, the deceased testator, cannot, obviously constrain this Court to conclude, of, the deceased testator hence embossing, thereupon, her thumb impressions, (ii) also want of clear, and, unsmudged thumb impressions of the deceased testator, on Ex.D-1, nor can hence empower marginal witnesses thereto, to render consistent affirmative testifications, of the deceased testator, thumb marking, Ex. D-1, in their presence, and, thereafter in the presence of the deceased testator, theirs also appending their signatures thereon. D-1, in their presence, and, thereafter in the presence of the deceased testator, theirs also appending their signatures thereon. Contrarily, existence, of, smudged thumb impressions of the deceased testator, on Ex. D-1, benumbs the testifications, of marginal witnesses, to Ex.D-1, and, also bolsters an unflinching conclusion (i) of with no thumb impressions of the deceased testator, existing, on Ex.D-1, hence rather theirs contriving, the factum of the deceased testator, in their respective presences, hence, embossing her thumb impressions thereon. The aforesaid inference and conclusions, drawn by this Court, qua hence the affirmative consistent testifications, rendered, by the marginal witnesses to Ex. D-1, rather being a contrivance besides an invention, does obviously, relieve this Court, to not proceed, to answer the aforesaid substantial questions of law, as stood formulated by this Court, given the judicial conscience, of this Court remaining unsatiated, vis-a-vis Ex.D-1, being proven to be thumb marked, by the deceased testator. 9. By that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, has continued, to contend, that with the Sub Registrar concerned embossing an endorsement, on, the reverse of Ex. D-1, hence, per se, thereupon, effects, if any, of non existence of clear thumb impressions, of, the deceased testator, rather being effaced. (i) More so, when preceding therewith, the Sub Registrar concerned, on posthumous presentation, of Ex. D-1, before him, for hence its registration, significantly by Salochana Devi, the legatee constituted thereunder, the Sub Registrar concerned, rather evidently making an order, within the ambit of Section 41 and 42 of the Registration Act vis-a-vis the posthumous registration, of Ex.D-1, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- 41. Registration of wills and authorities to adopt.— (1) A will or an authority to adopt, presented for registration by the testator or donor, may be registered in the same manner as any other document. (2) A will or authority to adopt presented for registration by any other person entitled to present it shall be registered if the registering officer is satisfied— (a) that the will or authority was executed by the testator or donor, as the case may be; (b) that the testator or donor is dead; and (c) that the person presenting the will or authority is, under section 40, entitled to present the same. 42. 42. Deposit of wills.—Any testator may, either personally or by duly authorized agent, deposit with any Registrar his will in a sealed cover superscribed with the name of the testator and that of his agent (if any) and with a statement of the nature of the document. He also contends that with the Sub Registrar concerned, hence posthumously rendering the apt statutory orders, and, it also containing an echoing qua the finger print bureau, being disabled to make a clear finding, with respect, to the unauthenticity of the thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, borne in Ex.D-1, (i) hence, the plaintiffs/appellants, being forbidden to contest, the authenticity of the thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, existing on Ex.D-1. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot, be accepted (ii) given posthumous rendition, of, the apt statutory order by the Sub Registrar concerned, standing obviously apparently made, subsequent to the demise of the deceased testator, (iii) also when the relevant endorsements, made, on the reverse of Ex.D-1, are necessarily a sequel vis-a-vis the preceding therewith order, made by the Sub Registrar concerned, and, predominantly also when the post demise order, for registration of Ex. D-1, (iv) neither operates as res judicata nor estops, Civil Courts, from, adjudging, the authenticity of the thumb impressions of the deceased testator, existing on Ex.D-1. Nowat, the recitals borne, in the order pronounced, by the Sub Registrar concerned, qua the finger print bureau, not, rendering any affirmative opinion, qua the authenticity or unauthenticity, of the thumb impressions of the deceased testator, occurring, on Ex. D-1, (v) also cannot, hence, per se, thereupon, constrain this Court, to accept as authentic, the purported thumb impressions of the deceased testator, nor the consistently rendered affirmative testifications, by the marginal witnesses thereto, can thereupon hence, satiate the apposite statutory ingredients, significantly (a) with reiteratedly lack of existence of clear thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, on Ex. D-1; (b) rather carrying a concomitant disabling effect, upon, the apposite marginal witnesses, to hence make depositions of the deceased testator, thumb marking, Ex. D-1, in their respective presence. Contrarily, it appears that the smudging, of thumb impressions, purportedly, of the deceased testator, upon Ex. D-1; (b) rather carrying a concomitant disabling effect, upon, the apposite marginal witnesses, to hence make depositions of the deceased testator, thumb marking, Ex. D-1, in their respective presence. Contrarily, it appears that the smudging, of thumb impressions, purportedly, of the deceased testator, upon Ex. D-1, being, engendered, by contrivance besides inter se collusion, of, the legatee vis-a-vis the marginal witnesses thereto, and, also the scribe thereof, (c) merely, for precluding, detections of authenticities or unauthenticity(ies) thereof, and, obviously in garb thereof, theirs rather facilitating the legatee constituted thereunder, to acquire the assets of the deceased testator. Consequently, all contrivances, and, the collusions aforestated, cannot, be accepted by this Court, nor hence, the judicial conscience of this Court vis-a-vis the trite statutory principles, being evidently satiated, cannot obviously be assuaged. Consequently this Court, does not deem it fit to answer the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 10. Even though a testamentary disposition, is not compulsorily registrable, and, even when an unregistered Will, assumes, a mantle of authenticity, upon evident proof standing adduced, qua satiation being begotten, of, the mandate enshrined in Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, (a) yet only upon registration of the Will, rather occurring during the life time of the deceased testator, and, with the relevant endorsements being made in his/her presence, by the Sub Registrar concerned, they would hence acquire conclusivity, unless potent evidence in rebuttal thereto, is adduced, (b) and also would over come the effects, if any, of any dis-affirmative testifications, rendered by marginal witnesses thereto. Nowat when the disabling effects, of, the smudged thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, existing on Ex.D-1, hence may accordingly stand effaced, upon, the deceased testator presenting the Will, before the Sub Registration concerned, (c) whereat obviously the relevant endorsements, would occur, in her/his presence, and, also they would acquire an aura of conclusivity vis-a-vis valid execution of the “Will”, unless potent evidence in rebuttal thereto hence stands adduced. (d) Contrarily want thereof, and, rather the will being unregistered, renders spurring, of, an inference, of, the smudged thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, arousing suspicion, and also bolstering an inference of renditions, of, affirmative testifications, of, marginal witnesses thereto, hence standing, marginalized. 11. (d) Contrarily want thereof, and, rather the will being unregistered, renders spurring, of, an inference, of, the smudged thumb impressions, of the deceased testator, arousing suspicion, and also bolstering an inference of renditions, of, affirmative testifications, of, marginal witnesses thereto, hence standing, marginalized. 11. 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. 12. In view of the above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are set aside, and, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Consequently, the plaintiffs are declared to be entitled to inherit the share of deceased Mohro Devi in the suit property in accordance with law, and, defendant is directed to handover vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within three months from today besides the defendant is also restrained from interfering in the suit land in any manner whatsoever through her agents servants, assigns etc. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.