JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiff instituted, a suit, for declaration against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff, stood decreed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, by the defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred, with the verdict, recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the defendants/appellants herein, are, driven to institute, the, instant appeal herebefore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Kaushalya Devi filed suit for declaration, possession with consequential relief of injunction pleading that suit land compromising land measuring 2.44.03 Hectares, being shares of Khata No. 6, Khatauni Nos 14, 16, 17, 20 to 24 field Nos. 1564, 1565, 330, 333, 334, 336, 247, 247, 248, 249, 251, 254, 267, 359, 481, 484, 487, 488, 245, 478, 1639, 246, 250, 274, 275, 332, 333, 337, 486, 483, 485, 1636,1638, 1640, 331, 482, 243,244, 252, 338, 489, 479 kita 41 area 4.88.07 Hects land measuring 0.02.41 Hects. Being 40/180 shares of Khata Nos 22, Khatauni No. 78, 79 field No. 1999, 2028, 2030, 2027, 2029 kita 5 area measuring 0.10.83, hects and land measuring 0.04.26 hectares being 1/3 share of Khata No. 23 khatauni No. 80 field No. 1991 area 0.12.78 hectares total land 2.50.79 hectares as entered in the Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 situated at Mohal Chaplah Tehsil Dehra District Kangra was in ownership and possession of one Ram Rakhi. Her husband had expired before enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and she had inherited the suit land from her husband and thereby became absolute owner in possession of the same. The plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 3 Smt. Ajudhya Devi are the real sisters of Jagan Nath. Hence, after the death of Ram Rakhi, they are entitled to succeed to the suit land by virtue of heirs of Ram Rakhi, they are entitled to succeed to the suit land by virtue of heirs of Jagan Nath since Ram Rakhi died issueless. The defendants No. 1 and 2 Om Prakash and Suresh Kumar in collusion with scribe, witnesses and Patwari Halqua forged and fabricated one Will purported to have been executed by Ram Rakhi in their favour and consequently, got mutation No. 199 entered in their favour. The defendants No. 1 and 2 Om Prakash and Suresh Kumar in collusion with scribe, witnesses and Patwari Halqua forged and fabricated one Will purported to have been executed by Ram Rakhi in their favour and consequently, got mutation No. 199 entered in their favour. The plaintiff has pleaded that both the defendants are strangers and are not related to the deceased They have threatened to interfere in possession of plaintiff. Hence, suit for declaration was filed with the prayer that plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 3 be declared owners in possession of suit property. Further, the prayer was made to restrain the defendants from interfering in possession of plaintiff over the suit property. The prayer was also made for possession in case, defendants would found in possession. 3. The defendant No 1 filed written statement wherein they took preliminary objections as to maintainability, locus standi, and estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties and valuation of lthel suit. On merits, defendants stated that Ram Rakhi was their sister-in-law, and the defendants had been looking after Ram Rakhi who used to stay with the defendants. Consequently, Ram Rakhi during her life time had executed valid Will dated 3.11.1996 in favour of defendant Nos 1 and 2 to the extent of 2/3 share and to the extent of 1/3rd share in favour of plaintiffs in respect of her property. The plaintiff and proforma defendants are married and staying with their in-laws. Hence, on the basis of will a valid mutation qua the suit property it was in their possession. Son there was no question to interfere in the possession of plaintiff, hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement wherein she admitted the case of the plaintiff and categorically pleaded that late Ram Rakhi did not execute any Will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 3, hence prayed to pass a decree in her favour alongwith the plaintiff. 4. Replication has been filed, wherein the contentions made in the written statement, are, denied and those made in the plaint are re-asserted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 16.10.1998. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? OPP 3. Replication has been filed, wherein the contentions made in the written statement, are, denied and those made in the plaint are re-asserted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 16.10.1998. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? OPP 3. Whether Ram Rakhi executed a valid will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, dated 3.11.1996? If so, its effect? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD 6. Relief. 5. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendants, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the apposite appeal, and, affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 6. 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 26.10.2010, admitted the appeal instituted by the appellant(s), against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial question(s) of law:- (i) Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties, particularly, basic document of title i.e. Will Ext. DW1/A the execution whereof was duly proved by the witnesses Jaimal Singh PW-2 and the marginal witnesses Manohar Lal, DW-2 and Ashwani Kumar DW-4? 2. Whether the assumption of the Court below that the Will Ext. DW1/A was a forged and fabricated document is sustainable in law in the absence of particulars of fraud, etc. when the execution of the Will was duly proved by the scribe and the attesting witnesses in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, when the burden to prove the said fact lay on the persons setting up such a plea? Substantial questions of Law No. 1 and 2 7. The defendants, who propounded Ext. when the execution of the Will was duly proved by the scribe and the attesting witnesses in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, when the burden to prove the said fact lay on the persons setting up such a plea? Substantial questions of Law No. 1 and 2 7. The defendants, who propounded Ext. DW1/A, executed by deceased testator, one Ram Rakhi, stand aggrieved, by the concurrent verdicts, recorded, by both, the learned Courts below, (i) wherethrough, Ext. DW1/A was pronounced, not to be, proven, to be, validly and duly executed, by the afore testator. Consequently, through, the instant Regular Second Appeal, constituted before this Court, they strive to beget reversal, of, the afore verdicts, as stand, concurrently pronounced, hence against them. Ext. DW1A, is, an unregistered testamentary disposition, executed by deceased testator Ram Rakhi, where-through she constituted the plaintiff, and, the defendants No. 1 and 2, as her legatees. The scribe of the Will, is one Jagmail Singh, who stepped into the witness box as DW-2. One Manohar Lal Sharma, and, one Ashwani, also respectively, stepped into the witness box, as DW-3 and DW-4, hence in their capacity(ies), as, marginal witnesses thereto. Since, the testification, of, the scribe, is not the apt testimony, for therefrom making any firm conclusion, vis-a-vis, hence the statutory ingredients, cast under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, begetting apt satiation, 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 [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 given effect to the writings 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 been some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, of 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) thereupon the testification, rendered by the scribe, who stepped into the witness box, as DW-2, Jagmail Singh, is, not of any probative worth, hence, for, the afore purpose. Contrarily, the testitication of the marginal witnesses to Ext. DW1/A, one Manohar Lal, and, of one Ashwani, who respectively stepped into the witness box, as DW-3, and as DW-4, enjoin makings, of, imperative allusion thereto, (ii) for therefrom, determining whether the statutory parameters, embodied, in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, rather therefrom begetting, their apt satiation. Their respective testitifications, contain echoings, qua the deceased testator, in contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the execution of Ext. DW1/A, possessing enlivened cognitive faculty(s), (iii) and, also contain echoing(s), qua in their respective presence(s), the deceased testator, making her thumb impression thereon, and, thereafter, (iv) also both articulate qua each in the presence, of, the deceased testator, also making their respective signatures, hence thereon. The afore testification(s), rendered with the hence apt intrase corroboration(s), vis-a-vis, rather satiation, there-through, being meted, vis-a-vis, the statutory ingredients, borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, remained unscathed, vis-a-vis, their apt vigor, (v) conspicuously, even during the course of the afore witnesses', being subjected, to the exacting ordeal, of, a rigorous cross-examination. Consequently, though, hence sanctity was enjoined to be meted vis-a-vis, Ext. DW1/A, rather the learned first appellate Court, introduced, certain suspicious circumstances, hence surrounding, the, execution of Ext. Consequently, though, hence sanctity was enjoined to be meted vis-a-vis, Ext. DW1/A, rather the learned first appellate Court, introduced, certain suspicious circumstances, hence surrounding, the, execution of Ext. DW1/A, and, concluded, qua with theirs remaining un-explained, hence dispelled the vigor, of, the testification(s), rendered by the afore marginal witnesses, to Ext. DW1/A, and, who respectively stepped, into, the witnesses boxes, as, DW-3, and as DW-4. The suspicious circumstances, projected by the learned first appellate Court, is comprised in the factum, (vi) qua with the latter containing recitals), vis-a-vis, the propounders, being related, to the deceased testator, and, the afore recital being not borne out from the pedigree table, (vii) and with the afore also not proving qua theirs, rendering services, to the deceased testator, rather with the abstract of Pariwar Register, appertaining to Ram Rakhi, unveiling qua hers residing alone, and, not with the defendants, (viii) thereupon, it concluded qua there being no occasion, for, the propounders, of, the Will, to serve Ram Rakhi, hence, the factum of Ram Rakhi, being coaxed, to, upon theirs' rendering services to her, hence constitute them, as her legatees, being falsified. Even though, the propounders, are not closely related to the deceased testator, rather when DWs, in his testification, made echoing(s), vis-a-vis, the house of the deceased testator, and, of, the propounders, being proximately located and, also his further deposing qua the propounders, during the lifetime, of, the deceased testator, rather taking care of her, (ix) thereupon when the afore testification has remained un-eroded of its vigor, (x) thereupon when the defendants, given theirs holding their abode(s), in, proximity to the abode of deceased testator, were hence enabled to serve her, and, when testified services rendered by them, vis-a-vis, the deceased testator, are, un-eroded of its/their vigor, (xi) thereupon the factum of Ext. DB, disclosing qua Ram Rakhi, residing alone, would not beget any conclusion, that, the recitals, qua the deceased testator, being hence, coaxed to bestow, the apt legacy upon them, becoming beclouded with any suspicion. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below, had concluded that, with, the thumb impressions, purportedly, of the deceased testator, being super imposed or smudged, thereupon the testifications, of, DW-3, and, of DW-4, marginal witnesses thereto, being amenable for not meteing any credence thereto. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below, had concluded that, with, the thumb impressions, purportedly, of the deceased testator, being super imposed or smudged, thereupon the testifications, of, DW-3, and, of DW-4, marginal witnesses thereto, being amenable for not meteing any credence thereto. However, the afore reason is a mere invention, and also is surmisal, (i) as during the course of cross-examination, of, the afore witnesses, no suggestion, in consonance therewith, stood meted, to the afore marginal witness, (ii) and, when the Court, has, without making any reference to the experts concerned, has, suo-motu, through its ipse-dixit, made the afore conclusion, (iii) whereas, only upon a reference, being made to the finger impression expert, and, with the latter rendering, an affirmative opinion thereon therefrom, rather the Court would be coaxed, to make the afore conclusion, (iv) thereupon in its suo moto making the afore conclusion, is, fallacious, moreso, when prima-facie, the thumb impression, of the deceased testator, does not appear, to be superimposed or smudged, and, also is amenable, for, comparisons, with her, admitted thumb impressions, recoursing(s) whereof, stood un-endeavored rather by the plaintiff. 9. Xxx XXX XXX. 10. Xxx XXX XXX. 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. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants/defendants, and, against the respondent/plaintiff. 12. 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.