JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the verdict pronounced by the learned first appellate Court i.e Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi H.P, upon, Civil Appeal No. 2/2001, 98/2004, where through it set aside, the, verdict of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit No. 38/1996, as, rendered by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P, and, hence it validated, the, testamentary disposition, as, propounded by the plaintiff, and, borne in Ex. PW-3/A, and, invalidated, the, testamentary disposition, as, propounded by the defendants, and, as, embodied in Ex. D-1, and, it also dismissed, the, cross-objections reared by the defendants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that land detailed in para 1(a) to para 1(d), of the plaint, was owned and possessed by the deceased Smt. Shankari to the extent mentioned therein, who was mother of the plaintiff, and, the deceased was residing with him, for, the last, more than 26 years. The plaintiff had three brothers and one of them namely Roshan Lal had died about 26 years ago all the brothers separated from each other and are residing separately since then. The deceased was residing with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been rendering all the services to the deceased, and, had been maintaining her till her death. The deceased Smt. Shankari on account of natural love and affection and for the services rendered by the plaintiff, voluntarily executed a valid testamentary disposition qua her property on 7.7.1989 in favour of the plaintiff, which also stood registered in the Office of Sub Registrar concerned. The deceased suffered paralysis and died on 10.7.1993. The defendants setup a false and fictitious will dated 26.3.1993, which was never executed by the deceased, as, she was not in a position to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sarkaghat, and, thus the will set up by the defendants is the result of mis-representation and cheating, and, therefore, the same is false and fictitious. The defendants never looked after and maintained the deceased. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants No. 1, 2, and, proforma defendant No.5, by filing written-statement, and, have taken preliminary objections qua cause of action, maintainability and valuation. The defendants never looked after and maintained the deceased. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants No. 1, 2, and, proforma defendant No.5, by filing written-statement, and, have taken preliminary objections qua cause of action, maintainability and valuation. It is admitted by the afore defendants that the land as detailed in para 1(a) to para-1 (d) of the plaint, was, owned and possessed by deceased Smt. Shankari to the extent mentioned therein. It is denied by them that the deceased was residing with the plaintiff, and, the plaintiff was looking after her. They averred that the deceased was looked after by the defendants and their family members. On account of the services being rendered by the defendants, the deceased executed a testamentary disposition on 26.3.1993 in favour of the defendants. It is also denied that the any will has been executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff. It is also denied that the deceased died on 10.7.1993, however, stated that the deceased died on 10.7.1995. 4. In the replication, the plaintiff has reiterated, and, reasserted the contents, as, enumerated in the plaint, and, has controverted contention(s) raised, in, the written statement. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the deceased Shankari had executed last and valid will of suit property on 7.7.89 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the defendants interferes in possession of the suit property? OPP 4. Whether the deceased Shankari executed last and valid will of suit property on 26.3.1993 in favour of the defendants as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the will dated 26.3.1993 is the result of cheating and fraud? OPP 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by the aggrieved, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court, while setting aside the verdict recorded, by the learned trial Court, allowed the appeal, and, it also dismissed, the, cross-objections raised by the defendants. 7. Now the appellant herein/defendant No.5, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherein, he assails the findings recorded, in the impugned verdict, hence by the learned first appellate Court. 8. 7. Now the appellant herein/defendant No.5, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before this Court, wherein, he assails the findings recorded, in the impugned verdict, hence by the learned first appellate Court. 8. When the appeal came up for admission, on 5.3.2010, this Court, admitted the appeal, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 2. Whether merely proof of execution of will be sufficient holding a will to be valid without explaining the suspicious circumstances appearing against the due and proper execution of will Ex. PW-3/A? 4. Whether the judgment and decree of the ld. Appellate Court below is vitiated one on account of illegal and unwarranted approach of appreciation of evidence brought on record? Substantial questions of law:- 9. Ex. PW-3/A, comprises the testamentary disposition, made by the deceased testator, and, is propounded by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short ?the plaintiff?), and, Ex. D-1 also comprises, a, testamentary disposition, made by the deceased testator, and, is propounded by the defendants. 10. Both the afore testamentary dispositions, are, registered testamentary dispositions. However, when Ex. PW-3/A is visibly recorded prior in time, vis-a-vis, the execution, of, Ex. D-1, and, obviously if Ex. D-1, is, proven to be validly and duly executed, hence within, the ambit, of, the statutory ingredients borne in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter, (a) thereupon, Ex. D-1 would prevail, upon, the earlier executed thereto testamentary disposition, and, as comprised, in, Ex. PW-3/A. ? 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 seal, 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. (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 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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of 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.? 11. In satiation of the afore peremptory statutory ingredients, the attesting witness, vis-a-vis, Ex. PW-3/A, in as much, as, PW-4 one Mr. D.D Verma, stepped into the witness box, and, rendered testification, with an animus possidendi, vis-a-vis, the deceased being known, to, him, and, in his presence, the, deceased, getting Ex. PW-3/A scribed, by PW-3 Prem Chand, (a) and, after the contents thereof being readover and explained to the deceased testator, the latter in his presence making her thumb impression, on, Ex. PW-3/A, (b) and, thereafter he further testifies qua his, and, the other marginal witnesses thereto, one Bhag Singh, both in the presence, of, the deceased testator, appending their respective signatures thereon. He has made a pointed communication, in his deposition, qua, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the afore statutory acts, being completed, (a) the deceased testator being in a sound disposing state of mind, and, he also further proceeded, to, make a testification, qua Ex. PW-3/A, being presented, before the Sub Registrar, whereat, also contents thereof, being readover and explained, to the deceased testator, (b) and, after the Sub Registrar concerned, ensuring qua the deceased testator, fully comprehending them, hence his making, the, statutory endorsement, on, Ex. PW-3/A, being presented, before the Sub Registrar, whereat, also contents thereof, being readover and explained, to the deceased testator, (b) and, after the Sub Registrar concerned, ensuring qua the deceased testator, fully comprehending them, hence his making, the, statutory endorsement, on, Ex. PW-3/A, and, where underneath the deceased testator has also embossed her thumb impression, (c) and there underneath the sub Registrar concerned, has appended his signatures, (d) and when the afore testification and, all the afore, hence, generates an inference qua there through, the, afore statutory ingredients, becoming fully satiated, (e) and, also when the statutory sealed endorsement made on Ex. PW-3/A, rather by the Sub Registrar concerned, and, whereat the deceased testator also stood identified, by the afore PW-4, hence holds a presumption of truth, conspicuously when the defendants, do not contest, the authenticity of the apposite thumb impression(s), occurring upon Ex. PW-3/A, (f) and made initially at the pre-registration stage, and, also in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its being ordered, to be registered by the Sub Registrar concerned, nor also when obviously any contest is raised, vis-a-vis, the identity, of, the deceased testator, being impersonated before the Sub Registrar concerned, (g) thereupon, reiteratedly the, lack of the afore contest(s) rather constrains this Court, to make, an invincible conclusion qua the statutory sealed endorsement, made on Ex. PW-3/A, hence by the sub Registrar concerned, holding an utmost solemn aura of veracity, (h) and, thereupon it is to be concluded qua the execution of Ex. PW-3/A, being proven to be validly made, hence, in the strictest adherence, being meted, vis-a-vis, the imperative statutory parameters, as, encapsulated in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act. 12. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/aggrieved defendant has contended, qua, with certain suspicious circumstances, surrounding the execution, of, Ex.PW-3/A, and, when the afore suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.PW-3/A, remained inexplicated, (i) thereupon, dehors the afore conclusions drawn by this Court rather the execution of Ex.PW-3/A, coming under, a, shroud of doubt, and, it being not amenable, for, validation, by this Court. 13. The purported suspicion surrounding the execution of Ex. PW-3/A, stands espoused, to be comprised, in, a false averment embodied in Ex. PW-3/A, qua, the plaintiff serving, the, deceased testator. 13. The purported suspicion surrounding the execution of Ex. PW-3/A, stands espoused, to be comprised, in, a false averment embodied in Ex. PW-3/A, qua, the plaintiff serving, the, deceased testator. However, the afore espousal becomes fully blunted, given the testifications in support, of, the afore recitals, as, borne therein being rendered by the plaintiff, and, also the afore testification becoming fully corroborated, by, the respective testifications, of, PWs 2, 5 and 7. 14. Further there-on-wards, the, learned counsel, for the aggrieved defendant/appellant herein, also contended qua, the, non-association, of, marginal witnesses, vis-a-vis, Ex. PW-3/A, of, those persons hence holding abode in proximity, to, the abode, of, the deceased testator, also engendering suspicion, vis-a-vis, the authenticity, of, their respective testimonies, as, made, in, purported satiation, of, the peremptory requirement, as, embodied in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. However, even the afore submission is not sufficient, to, constrain this Court, to benumb their inter-se corroborative testimonies, vis-a-vis, hence satiation being made, vis-a-vis, the peremptory mandate, borne in Section of the Indian Succession Act, (a) as, both the marginal witnesses to Ex. PW-3/A, were subjected, to. a thorough, and, exhaustive cross-examinations, (b) and, yet each deposing with utmost inter-se corroboration, vis-a-vis, the preeminent factum, qua, the thumb impression of the deceased testator, occurring in PW-3/A, not being spurious, (c) whereas, only upon a valid, and, successful contest, vis-a-vis, thereto hence being raised, hence would render the afore espousal, to, galvanize vigour, (d) contrarily when the afore preeminent factum, remains uncontested, and, combining therewith, the afore factum qua the depositions, of, the marginal witnesses, to, Ex. PW-3/A, as, comprised, in, the respective examination(s)-in-chief, hence, remaining uneroded, during, the ordeal of their/his apt respective cross-examination(s), (e) thereupon the mere factum qua his/theirs not holding his/theirs abode in proximity, to the abode of the deceased testator, becomes underwhelmed, and, also looses its effect. 15. Lastly the aggrieved defendant/appellant herein, had contended with much vigour, before this Court, that with Ex.D-1, being the subsequently executed testamentary disposition, hence by the deceased testator, (a) thereupon, Ex. D-1 prevails, upon, the earlier thereto executed testamentary disposition, as, embodied in Ex. 15. Lastly the aggrieved defendant/appellant herein, had contended with much vigour, before this Court, that with Ex.D-1, being the subsequently executed testamentary disposition, hence by the deceased testator, (a) thereupon, Ex. D-1 prevails, upon, the earlier thereto executed testamentary disposition, as, embodied in Ex. PW-3/A. However, the afore submission, would be acceptable, only upon, the learned counsel, for, the aggrieved defendant, making this Court transverse through the evidence, of, the marginal witnesses thereto, (b) and, therefrom it emerging qua the afore peremptory statutory mandate, as, carried in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, begetting the utmost satiation. However a perusal of Ex. D-1, makes underscorings therein, vis-a-vis, the afore Bhag Singh (DW-6), and, Karam Chand (DW-5) rather appending their signatures, as, marginal witnesses, to, Ex. D-1, and, DW-3 one Kewal Singh appending his signatures thereon, as, an identifier of the deceased testator. Consequently Ex. DW-3, cannot, be concluded to be holding the apt befitting capacity, to, testify, as, a marginal witness to Ex. D-1, nor, also he was enabled to make a testification, for, there through satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the peremptory mandate embodied in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, nonetheless dehors the afore, one Bhag Singh marginal witness to Ex. D-1, did step into, the witness box, for, his rendering a deposition, vis-a-vis, the valid, and, due execution of Ex. D-1. However a close scrutiny of his testification, unveils, that he omits to make any bespeakings, therein, qua, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the deceased testator hence embossing her thumb impression, upon, Ex. D-1, (a) conspicuously at the preregistration stage, his seeing her, to do the afore act, and, also he omits to testify, vis-a-vis, his also, in, presence of the deceased testator, making his signatures upon Ex. D-1. Consequently, the afore omissions, in the testification of DW-6, a marginal witness to Ex. D-1, renders the latter, to, at the preregistration stage, becoming not proven hence, within the ambit of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, to be validity and duly executed rather by the deceased testator. 16. Even though Ex. D-1 alike Ex. PW-3/A, is, a registered testamentary disposition, and, upon minimal discrepancy(s), if any, vis-a-vis, the completest satiation, not being meted qua the statutory ingredients, cast under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, hence, at the pre-registration stage, rather would become subsumed, (a) upon, the statutory endorsement made, on Ex. 16. Even though Ex. D-1 alike Ex. PW-3/A, is, a registered testamentary disposition, and, upon minimal discrepancy(s), if any, vis-a-vis, the completest satiation, not being meted qua the statutory ingredients, cast under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, hence, at the pre-registration stage, rather would become subsumed, (a) upon, the statutory endorsement made, on Ex. D-1, hence by the Registering authority concerned, also not coming under a cloud. Both DW-5 and DW-6 are witnesses, to, the making, of, the apt sealed statutory endorsement, hence upon Ex. D-1, (b) and, where underneath the thumb impression, of, the deceased testator also occurs, and, also the signatures, of, both DW-5 and DW-6, are, testified to be made, in contemporaneity vis-a-vis Ex. D-1 becoming accepted for registration, (c) and, both testify qua validity, of, the statutory endorsement, made, on Ex. D- 1, (d) however, there through the apposite sealed signatures borne in statutory endorsement, becomes tentatively rejuvenated, dehors the lack of completest statutory satiations, being meted, upon, Ex. D-1, vis-a-vis, the phase, of, its preregistration. However, even the corroborative testifications, of, DW-5 and DW-6, qua theirs, before the Registering officer, scribing their respective signatures, upon, Ex. D-1, become rather blunted, by, the factum qua there, occurring, rife intra-se, contradictions, inter-se, their testifications, (a) contradictions whereof are comprised in DW-5, rendering echoings in his examination-in-chief, qua at the preregistration stage, one Bhag Singh, in, presence, of, the deceased testator appending his signatures, upon, Ex. D-1, whereas, in, dire contradiction thereto Bhag Singh, deposing, qua his appending his signatures, upon, Ex. D-1 rather only before the sub Registrar concerned . 17. Though the afore inter-se contradiction(s) appear, to, be extremely trivial. However, its impact is grave, and, critical, given hence with the afore, inter-se, contradiction inter-se the testifications of DW-5, and, DW-6, highlighting, the, trite factum qua the signatures of DW-6 Bhag Singh, as, borne in Ex. D-1, also not being made, before, the sub Registrar concerned, rather theirs being made elsewhere. Importantly when Ex. D-1 was a registered document, and, upon leave being granted, to, introduce it as a secondary evidence, it was hence proven, through, the testification, of, a registration clerk, (i) yet even when the registered copy of the Ex. D-1, also not being made, before, the sub Registrar concerned, rather theirs being made elsewhere. Importantly when Ex. D-1 was a registered document, and, upon leave being granted, to, introduce it as a secondary evidence, it was hence proven, through, the testification, of, a registration clerk, (i) yet even when the registered copy of the Ex. D-1, is maintained in the records of the sub Registrar concerned, and, also comprises, the, original of the apposite registered testamentary disposition, (ii) and, when with the afore suspicion hence ingraining the making of signatures, by, both DW-5 and DW-6 in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the sealed statutory endorsement, being made thereon, by, the Sub Registrar concerned, and, whereat the thumb impression, of, the deceased testator, were also embossed hence, there underneath, the apposite endorsement, (iii) rather imperatively enjoined adduction, of, evidence both, for, dispelling the afore suspicion, and, for ensuring visiting, of, satiation, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, (iv) besides, also to secure a conclusion qua it remaining unsuttled, and, comprised in the propounder of Ex. D-1, hence ensuring the stepping into the witness box, of, the Sub Registrar concerned, for, hence his making a deposition, qua only, in his presence, the, afore DW-5, and, DW-6, appending their signatures on Ex. D-1, (v) and, only when thereupon, the, effect of minimal discrepancies, vis-a-vis, the apt statutory compliance(s), hence at the preregistration stage, would be deemed, to be overcome. 18. However, when the Sub Registrar, did not step into the witness box, and, hence when the afore skepticism, as, percolates, vis-a-vis, the testification of DW-6, qua his making his signatures, upon, Ex. D-1, only before the Sub Registrar concerned, (i) thereupon the vigour, of, the sealed statutory endorsement made upon Ex. D-1, by the Sub Registrar concerned, becomes scuttled, (ii) thereupon the sealed statutory endorsement made, upon, Ex. D-1, looses significance, and, hence it is concluded qua the peremptory statutory mandate, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, remaining thoroughly unsatiated. 19. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Records be sent back.