JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned trial Court i.e. Sub Judge, Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, non-suited the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short the plaintiff), and, obviously returned findings adversarial to the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, execution, of, the apposite testamentary disposition, by, deceased testator one Harnama, on 14.1.1994, wherethrough he constituted the contesting defendants No.1 and 2/appellants herein (for short the defendants), as, his legatees, and, rather pronounced qua, it, being proven to be validly, and, duly executed. 2. The aggrieved therefrom plaintiff, instituted an appeal, before the learned first appellate Court i.e. Additional District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan. The learned first appellate Court, hence pronounced a verdict rather leaning, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and, obviously adversarial to the defendants. 3. The aggrieved therefrom, the, contesting defendants hence reared the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherethrough they strive, to, beget reversal, of, the impugned verdict. 4. The brief facts of the case are that one Ram Saran S/o Shri Hira, who was grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2, and, proforma defendants No. 3 to 9, and, father in law of proforma defendant No.10, was the owner in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 239 measuring 9-15 bigha, situated in Mauza Taruwala, Patti Heerpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., and, in the settlement, new Khasra No. 500/239 was assigned. The land comprised in khasra No. 240 measuring 0-1 bigha and Khasra No. 242 measuring 5-14 bigha, total measuring 5-15 bigha, situated in mauza Taruwala, patti Heerpur was also possessed by the afore Ram Saran as tenant under proforma defendants No. 11 to 17, as per the jamabandi for the year 1965-66. After the demise of Ram Saran, his entire land was inherited by his legal heirs in equal shares as per the pedigree table drawn in para 4 of the plaint. It has been averred that after the death of Smt. Dei, who was the daughter of Ram Saran, her share was equally inherited by her legal heirs who after inheriting the same relinquished their rights in favour of deceased Harnama, who was the father of the plaintiff, and, defendants No. 1 and 2, and, proforma defendants No. 3 to 9, and, husband of proforma defendant No. 10. It has further been averred that lateron a civil suit being filed by Dayal Singh, titled as Dayal Singh v. Harnama and others, bearing No. 132/1 of 1992 was dismissed as withdrawn on the undertaking of said Harnama that he will not alienate the suit land in any manner and will give the suit land to his sons in equal share vide his statement recorded in that afore suit on 24.8.1993. The afore Harnama during his lifetime executed a will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. At the time of execution of the afore will, he was ill and very weak, and, was not in a position to bequeath his property in any manner, but defendants No.1 and 2 put pressure upon him and got executed a will in their favour on 14.1.1994, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. It has been averred by the plaintiff that the will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, and, is illegal null and void and void abnitio and the mutation No. 1427 of 26.2.1996 which has been attested on the strength of the aforesaid will is also null and void and liable to be set aside. It has also been averred by the plaintiff that the suit land was possessed by Shri Ram Saran and after his death the same was inherited by the aforesaid Harnama and the same is joint Hindu ancestral property and the entire land was inherited by Shri Harnama from his father which land has also been bequeathed by him in favour of defendants No1 and 2 and the said 'Will' will not affect the right of the plaintiff and proforma defendants No.3 to 10. It has further been stated by the plaintiff that on the strength of the aforesaid mutation defendants No.1 and 2 are trying to dispose of the suit land and they were asked by him several times to get the mutation cancelled but the defendants No.1 and 2 are avoiding the same on one pretext or the other. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction. 5. The defendant No.1 filed the written-statement, wherein it has been averred that late Sh. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of injunction. 5. The defendant No.1 filed the written-statement, wherein it has been averred that late Sh. Harnama executed a valid will in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, and, at the time of execution of the will, he was in sound disposing state of mind and the same was registered in the Office of Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib. It has also been stated that Harnama used to live with them and defendants No.1 and 2 used to serve and maintain him. It has also been denied that the suit land was the ancestral property and further submitted that Harnama was competent to bequeath the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No. 2,3 and 4 also filed separate written-statements, and, supported the case of the plaintiff. In the replication, the plaintiff controverted the contentions of the defendants, and, reiterated his stand taken in the plaint. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether Harnama executed a valid will in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 14.1.1994 in sound and disposing mind, if so its effect? OPD 1 and 2. 2. Whether will dated 14.1.1994 executed by Sh. Harnama is a result of coercion under influence, if so its effect? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction ? OPP 4. Whether plea taken in amended plaint is barred by limitation? OPD 1 and 2. 5. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the plaintiff, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 8. Now defendants No.1 and 2, 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. 8. Now defendants No.1 and 2, 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, on 9.5.2006, this Court, admitted the appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question, of law:- Whether the finding of the first appellate Court that the will set up by the appellant-defendant is not genuine, is contrary to the evidence on record and the law applicable to the facts and hence bad? Substantial question of law:- 9. Ex. DW-2/A is a registered testamentary disposition executed by the deceased Harnama, wherethrough he constituted, the propounders thereof, as, his legatees, Ex. DW2/A, after its purported valid execution, by the deceased testator, comprised in (a) it being signatured by the deceased testator, in, presence, of, the marginal witnesses thereto, namely one Sant Ram, and, one Julfi Ram, (b) and thereafter it also purportedly, in, the presence of deceased testator, hence stood signatured or thumb marked, by the marginal witnesses thereto, (c) besides thereafter, the, afore testamentary disposition, stood presented, before the Sub Registrar concerned, and, whereat the statutory endorsement, was made thereon, by the Sub Registrar concerned, with trite voicings, vis-a-vis, the contents, of, Ex. DW-2/A being readover and ensured to be comprehended, to the deceased testator, and, also thereafter the latter hence embossing thereon, his, signatures in Urdu. Moreover, he also thereat stood identified, by his counsel, whose uncontested signatures, hence occur, on the reverse of Ex. DW-2/A, (d) preponderantly also when the plaintiff, did not, make any endeavor, to rebut, the presumption of truth enjoyed rather by the afore made signatures, and, seals, upon, the endorsement hence recorded by the Sub Registrar concerned, (e) and, also with the signatures there underneath in urdu, of, the deceased testator remaining uncontested, (f) thereupon, a conclusion was erectable, vis-a-vis, within the ambit of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the, defendants rather proving its valid and due execution. 10. However, the learned first appellate Court, proceeded to dispel the vigour, of, the afore will, on, anvil of the testification rendered, by one Julfi Ram, who appeared as PW-5. 10. However, the learned first appellate Court, proceeded to dispel the vigour, of, the afore will, on, anvil of the testification rendered, by one Julfi Ram, who appeared as PW-5. In his testification, PW-5 made echoings, vis-a-vis, (a) the deceased testator, not subscribing on, the apposite testamentary disposition, rather his signatures, in his presence (b), and, also rendered echoing qua his also thereafter, in presence of the deceased testator, not, thumb marking Ex. DW2/A, (c) and, therefrom the learned first appellate Court, proceeded to, conclude that with the statutory ingredients, borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, rather, when make it peremptory, for, the apposite testamentary disposition, hence, being construable to be validly, and, duly executed, (d) qua hence the deceased testator provenly making his signatures, in, the presence of the marginal witnesses thereto, and, thereafter the latters also provenly making their signatures thereon, in, the testators' presence, (e) whereas, the testification of PW-5, being outside, the purview of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (f) thereupon, it concluded qua dehors the testification, rendered by the other marginal witnesses, to, Ex. DW-2/A, who rather stepped, into the witness box as DW-1, and, who therein rendered, a, candid unequivocal echoing, hence affirmatively attracting the statutory provisions, enshrined, in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and (g) also deposed, vis-a-vis, execution of Ex. DW-2/A, by the deceased testator, ensuing from his thereat, being in, a sound disposing state of mind (h) besides also identified the signatures, of, one Mr. R.K Parara, as occur, on the reverse of Ex. DW-2/A, rather yet the peremptory statutory parameters enshrined, in, section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, hence, remaining unsatiated. 11. Even though, the enshrined statutory parameters, as, contemplated in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, for, begetting apt proven satiation, rather are not enjoined to be proven, by both the apposite marginal witnesses, rather, are, enjoined to be proven, only by one of the attesting witnesses, vis-a-vis, the relevant testamentary disposition. However, as aforestated, disconcurrent testifications, stood echoed, by PW-5 Julfi Ram, and, by DW-2 Sant Ram, both of whom are the marginal witnesses to Ex. However, as aforestated, disconcurrent testifications, stood echoed, by PW-5 Julfi Ram, and, by DW-2 Sant Ram, both of whom are the marginal witnesses to Ex. DW-2/A, (i) the former supports the plaintiff, and, latter supports the propounders i.e. defendants, (ii) however, upon an incisive reading, of, the testimony of Julfi Ram, who appeared in the witness box as PW-5, and, who as concluded, by the learned first appellate Court, failed to render echoings, hence within, the ambit of Section 63 of the Indian Succession At, hence constrains the learned first appellate Court, to, construe qua Ex. DW-2/A, being not proven to be validly, and, duly executed, his testification hence unfolding rather suspicions' being sparked, vis-a-vis the veracity, of, his afore articulations(iii) suspicions whereof, are engendered by his also not denying the factum, qua, at the afore stage, the afore marginal witness thereto, one Sant Ram, being also present, (iv) his also not denying the factum, of, the deceased testator appending his signatures, on Ex. DW-2/A, wherefrom rather it is to be concluded qua his also deposing qua his therethrough hence proving even his carrying, the requisite aminus attestandi (v) lastly, when at the end of his cross-examination, he has acquiesced, to a suggestion, vis-avis, the plaintiff asking him, to depose, as his witness, therefrom an inference is erectable, vis-a-vis, his deposing at the behest, and, the instance of the plaintiff, (vi) and, therefrom a further inference is erectable, vis-a-vis, his afore testification, as, comprised in his cross-examination, also denuding, the, tenacity, of, the afore rendered echoings, borne in his examination-in-chief, (vii) and, the afore rendered echoings also being construable, qua rather theirs being supportive, qua an inference, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, of, execution of Ex. DW-2/A, the, afore marginal witness, one Sant Ram being also present, (viii) and, when thereafter Sant Ram, stepped into the witness box as DW-2, and, in his testification, rendered a clear voicing, vis-a-vis, both he, and, PW-5 Julfi Ram, sighting the deceased testator hence signature Ex. DW-2/A, the, afore marginal witness, one Sant Ram being also present, (viii) and, when thereafter Sant Ram, stepped into the witness box as DW-2, and, in his testification, rendered a clear voicing, vis-a-vis, both he, and, PW-5 Julfi Ram, sighting the deceased testator hence signature Ex. DW2/A, in Urdu, (ix) and, thereafter his making a vivid bespeaking qua thereafter, both he, and Sant Ram, also, in the presence of the deceased testator, making their respective signatures/thumb impressions thereon, (x) and, when the testification of Sant Ram, stood recorded, subsequent, to the recording of the deposition of PW-5 (Julfi Ram), and, who, as afore-stated acquiesced, vis-a-vis, his deposing, at the behest, of the plaintiff, (xi) and, also when the afore Sant Ram remained rather unconfronted, with the deposition of PW-5 Julfi Ram (xii) nor when PW-5 Julfi Ram stood confronted, with the deposition of Sant Ram, hence carrying therein, the afore echoings, (xiii) conspicuously upon the latter being recalled, for hence being confronted, with, all the afore requisite emerging repelling effects, vis-a-vis his testification, and, ensuing, from, the subsequent to his recorded testification, the afore Sant Ram, hence in his testification, making echoings rather stricto sensu hence falling within, the, domain, of, the statutory parameters contemplated in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, thereupon prima-facie a firm inference, is erectable, qua, the plaintiff acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the veracity, of, the testification rendered, by DW-2 Sant Ram. 12. Moreso when the apt statutory sealed signatures, of the sub Registrar, exist, on the reverse of the Ex. DW-2/A, and, whereto a presumption of truth is enjoyed, and, when the afore presumption remains un-rebutted, by clinching rebuttal evidence thereto being adduced, (i) besides, when the deceased testator, also thereat stood identified, by his counsel, whose signatures rather are also proven by his Clerk, one DW-2 Sant Ram, marginal witness to Ex. DW-2/A, thereupon vis-a-vis a registered testamentary disposition, any, purported minimal deviations, vis-a-vis, compliances qua the peremptory mandate, borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, is, hence blunted, and, negated, (a) as, any contra therewith inference would erode, the, factum of, through the apposite sealed and signatured unrebutted endorsement, whereunder the proven signatures, of, the testator exists, hence the valid execution of a registered testamentary disposition rather standing clinchingly proven. In sequel, the verdict, of, the learned Appellate Court hence suffers from, an, infirmity, as well as a perversity. In sequel, the verdict, of, the learned Appellate Court hence suffers from, an, infirmity, as well as a perversity. Consequently, I find merit in this appeal, which is accordingly allowed, and, the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, is, quashed and set aside, and, the judgment of learned trial Court, is, maintained, and, affirmed. Substantial question of law are answered accordingly. Records be sent back forthwith. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.