JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Chamba, in case Succession Act No. 1 of 2007, dated 02.01.2010, vide which, learned Court below had dismissed the application for grant of Probate so filed before it by the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are as under: Predecessor in interest of the present appellants, namely, Smt. Kalo (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner’) filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the learned trial Court praying for probate of Will so executed by Smt. Panjku, dated 08.01.1998, which as per the petitioner stood executed by deceased Panjku, who died on 26.08.2000. As per averments made in the probate petition, it stood mentioned therein that Smt. Panjku, before her death on 26.08.2000, had executed her last Will on 08.01.1998 whereby she had appointed the petitioner as the sole executor and left and bequeathed her entire estate in her favour. It further stood mentioned in the petition that Will in issue was registered and stood executed by the deceased in the presence of witnesses, whose names appeared in the Will and the Will in issue stood attested by them. It was further mentioned in the petition that deceased was a Hindu, governed by Hindu Succession Act and was survived by three daughters i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 therein and was pre-deceased by her husband. It was also mentioned in the petition that respondents No. 5 and 6 therein were the legal representatives of late Shri Ashok Kumar, who was the nominee of deceased Panjku. It was mentioned that petitioner was the same person i.e. Smt. Kalo, who was named in her Will by the deceased and, as such, she was entitled to the probate thereof. 3. Respondents No. 2 to 4 filed their reply to the probate petition. A preliminary objection was taken by them with regard to maintainability of the probate petition and it was also mentioned in the reply that one Shailender was a necessary party. The execution of the Will by late Smt. Panjku, as claimed in the petition, was denied and it was also denied that the petitioner was appointed as the sole executor of the Will by late Panjku. The execution of the Will by late Smt. Panjku, as claimed in the petition, was denied and it was also denied that the petitioner was appointed as the sole executor of the Will by late Panjku. As per the said respondents, Panjku had not executed any Will in favour of the petitioner and Panjku was being looked after by Sh. Shailender Singh son of Sh. Manso, who was grandson of Smt. Panjku and on 10.01.1995, she (Smt. Panjku) had executed a Will in favour of said Shri Shailender Singh. On these bases, it was prayed that probate petition be dismissed with costs. 4. Rejoinder to the reply was filed in which the petitioner reiterated and re-affirmed her stand made in the petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: “1. Whether Smt. Panjku had executed a will date 8.1.1998 in favour of Smt. Kalo, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the grant of probate? OPP 3. Whether the probate is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether Shalinder Singh is necessary party to the present petition? OPR 4 (a) Whether deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of the respondent No. 7, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPR 5. Relief.” 6. Vide judgment under challenge, learned Court below dismissed the petition in issue. Learned trial Court held that Panjku was admittedly a Hindu, governed by Hindu Succession Act, who had died on 26.08.2000 and defendants No. 2 to 4 were the daughters of the deceased, whereas her husband had pre-deceased her. Learned Court below observed that whereas the plea of the petitioner was that deceased Panjku had executed a valid Will in her favour dated 08.01.1998 whereby she had bequeathed her entire property in her (petitioner’s) favour, said contention of the petitioner stood denied by the respondents, as per whom, deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of respondents No. 7 on 10.01.1995. It further held that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with execution of the unprivileged Wills which was relevant for the decision of the case in hand. It further held that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with execution of the unprivileged Wills which was relevant for the decision of the case in hand. After taking note of the provisions of Section 63 supra, learned Court below observed that sub-Section (a) of Section 63 provided that Will has to be attested by at least two witnesses and each of these witnesses should have seen the testator singing or affixing his thumb mark on the Will. It further held that witnesses must sign the Will in the presence of the testator, which was the essential requirement for execution of a valid Will and these requirements cannot be just wished away. It further held that propounder of a Will must prove that there was compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Learned trial Court further held that in order to prove execution of the Will, the petitioner had examined one attesting witness as also the scribe of the Will. It further held that a perusal of statement of the petitioner (AW1) demonstrates that she was not present at the time of attestation of the Will and in her cross examination, she deposed that at the time of execution of the Will, she was not present and when she reached in the Tehsil office at about 10:00 a.m., the Will stood already executed by the deceased. It further held that attesting witnesses of the Will AW3 Karnail Singh deposed that on 07.01.1998, Panjku approached him and expressed her desire to execute a Will in favour of the petitioner and asked him to accompany her to Tehsil office, Dalhousie for the said purpose and on 08.01.1998, he alongwith Panjku, Smt. Mangla Devi and Ranjeet Singh went to Tehsil office, where Panjku, in his presence got scribed the Will from Tilak Singh qua the property referred to in the Will which Will was read over and explained to Panjku and Panjku after admitting the contents of the Will, affixed her thumb impression over the same. Thereafter, he (AW3) alongwith Ranjeet Singh and Mangla Devi appended their signatures over Will Ex. AW3/B. Thereafter they went to Tehsil office, Dalhousie for the purpose of registration of the Will and Tehsildar also read over and explained the contents of the Will to Smt. Panjku, who admitted the contents of the same to be correct. Thereafter, he (AW3) alongwith Ranjeet Singh and Mangla Devi appended their signatures over Will Ex. AW3/B. Thereafter they went to Tehsil office, Dalhousie for the purpose of registration of the Will and Tehsildar also read over and explained the contents of the Will to Smt. Panjku, who admitted the contents of the same to be correct. Learned Court held that perusal of the statement of AW3 demonstrated that he had not specifically stated that Will (AW3/B) was thumb marked by deceased Panjku in his presence and in the presence of other witnesses, but this witness had simply stated that the contents of the Will were read over to the deceased in the presence of the witnesses by the scribe and thereafter the deceased appended her thumb impression upon the Will in issue. Learned Court also held that this witness also did not state that he had signed the Will alongwith other witnesses, namely, Mangla Devi and Ranjit Singh, in the presence of the testator. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned Court below that the said witness thus failed to prove compliance of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Learned trial Court further held that Tilak Singh Rana (AW2) had deposed that on 08.01.1998, he had scribed the Will, as per instructions of the deceased, in the presence of witnesses Mangla Devi, Karnail Singh and Ranjit Singh and contents of the Will were read over to the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and the deceased admitted the same to be correct and thereafter affixed her thumb impression upon the Will and this was followed by the witnesses putting their signatures over the same. Learned trial Court concluded that this witness had stated that he had read over and explained the contents of the Will to the testator in the presence of the witnesses, which statement of AW2 was corresponding to the statement of AW3, but even AW3 had nowhere stated that deceased had put her thumb impression upon the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testator. Learned Court below thus held that AW2 had also failed to prove compliance of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. Learned Court below thus held that AW2 had also failed to prove compliance of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act. On these bases, it was held by the learned Court below that the execution of the Will dated 08.01.1998 could not be proved by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 (c) of the Act and thus, it could not be concluded on the basis of evidence adduced by the petitioner that testator had executed Will dated 08.01.1998 in her favour. 7. While deciding Issue No. 4 (a), learned Court below held that the Will propounded by respondent No. 7 was also not a valid Will as the said respondent had failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence to the effect that Smt. Panjku had executed any such Will in his favour. On these bases, learned Court below dismissed the petition. 8. As far as findings returned by the learned trial Court on Issue No. 4 are concerned, as they are not the subject matter of the appeal, nor any submission was addressed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, therefore, this Court is not dealing on this aspect of the matter. This appeal is directed against the findings returned by the learned Courts below whereby it held that the petitioner before it had failed to prove that the Will propounded by her, executed in her favour by late Smt. Panjku was a valid Will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 9. Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the judgment passed by the learned Court below is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law as the approach adopted by the learned Court below was a hyper technical approach without appreciating or understanding that a witness, who has deposed in the Court of law, was not expected to depose about the execution of the Will in a language which was para-materia with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. He further submits that a perusal of the records, especially the statements of the witnesses of the petitioner, clearly demonstrated that they had unequivocally deposed before the Court that the Will was scribed as per desire of the testator by the scribe and thereafter, the same was read over and explained to the testator by the scribe and the testator after understanding the same had appended her thumb impression over the same in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, the witnesses had appended their signatures upon the Will in issue in the presence of the testator. He thus submitted that all the requirements of Section 63 of the Succession Act stood met and this very important aspects of the matter were totally misread and mis-appreciated by the learned Court below. On these bases, a prayer was made by him to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Court below and for allowing the present appeal, as prayed for. 10. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, while defending the judgment passed by the learned Court below has argued that the findings returned by the learned Court below to the extent that the petitioner had failed to prove execution of the Will as per provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act are borne out from the records of the case and thus, it could not be said that judgment passed by the learned Court below was a result of misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that as due execution of the Will was not proved, on the strength of deposition of the witness by the petitioner before the learned Court below, there was no cause to interfere with the well reasoned judgment so passed by the learned trial Court. He thus prayed that the present appeal be dismissed with costs. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned Court below. 12. It is relevant to refer at this stage that earlier this appeal was allowed on 01.11.2017. He thus prayed that the present appeal be dismissed with costs. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned Court below. 12. It is relevant to refer at this stage that earlier this appeal was allowed on 01.11.2017. However, the judgment was subsequently recalled in a Review Petition which was filed by the legal representatives of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the appeal stood decided against a dead person, as respondent No. 2 had died during the pendency of the present appeal and his legal representatives were not brought on record. The judgment was accordingly set aside and the appeal was restored to its original number. An application was filed by the applicants/appellants to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 2. The application was allowed and the proposed legal representatives stood impleaded as respondents No. 2 (a) and 2 (b). They were heard through their learned counsel alongwith other represented respondents. 13. Before dealing with the respective contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it is relevant to take note of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which is quoted herein-below: “63. Execution of unprivileged Wills – Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor 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 marks 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 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 acknowledgment 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.” 14. In Gurudev Kaur and others vrs. Kaki and others, (2007) 1 SCC 546 , on interpretation of Will, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “77. The High Court has clearly deviated from the settled principle of interpretation of the Will. The Court does not sit in appeal over the right or wrong of the testator's decision. The Court's role is limited to examining whether the instrument propounded as the last Will of the deceased is or is not that by the testator and whether it is the product of the free and sound disposing mind. It is only for the purpose of examining the authenticity or otherwise of the instrument propounded as the last Will, that the Court looks into the nature of the bequest. 78. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has not even properly appreciated the context of the circumstances. The contents of the Will have to be appreciated in the context of his circumstances, and not vis-a-vis the rules for intestate succession. It is only for this limited purpose that the Court examines the nature of bequest. The Court does not substitute its own opinion for what was the testator's Will or intention as manifested from a reading of the written instrument. After all, a Will is meant to be an expression of his desire and therefore, may result in disinheritance of some and grant to another. The Court does not substitute its own opinion for what was the testator's Will or intention as manifested from a reading of the written instrument. After all, a Will is meant to be an expression of his desire and therefore, may result in disinheritance of some and grant to another. In the instant case, wife of the testator Bhagwan Kaur alone had lived with the deceased and only she had looked after him throughout his life. The other daughters were all happily married a long time ago and in their weddings the testator had spent huge amount of money. In his own words, he had spent more than what they would have got in their respective shares out of testator's property. 79. If a Will appears on the face of it to have been duly executed and attested in accordance with the requirements of the Statute, a presumption of due execution and attestation applies.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopal Swaroop Versus Krishna Murari Mangal and Others, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 266 has reiterated the observation of the Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443, that in the matter of proof of documents as in the case of proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty and the test to be applied always is the test of the satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi Versus Yumnam Joykumar Singh and Others, (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 780, has held as under: “11. As per provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of a Will: (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the Will. (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses. (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will and each of them should sign the Will in presence of the testator. 12. The attestation of the Will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses. (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will and each of them should sign the Will in presence of the testator. 12. The attestation of the Will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving the execution of such a document. 13. Therefore, having regards to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.” 17. In the light of the above, a perusal of the statements of the attesting witnesses as well as scribe lead to only one conclusion that despite the fact that said witnesses clearly and categorically deposed about the execution of the Will by its testator as is envisaged under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, yet the approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in appreciating their statements while dismissing the petition of the present appellant was nothing but a hyper technical approach. Learned Trial Court adjudicated the issue on the presumption that a witness necessarily should know each word of the statutory provisions of Section 63 (supra) and then depose the scene of execution of a Will, word to word as is prescribed in Section 63 of the Act (supra), to satisfy the test laid down in the said Section. Learned Trial Court adjudicated the issue on the presumption that a witness necessarily should know each word of the statutory provisions of Section 63 (supra) and then depose the scene of execution of a Will, word to word as is prescribed in Section 63 of the Act (supra), to satisfy the test laid down in the said Section. In my considered view, this is not the spirit of the provisions of Section 63 (supra). Of course, this Section lays down as to how a Will has to be proved but then it is not expected that a witness is to depose in the Court the factum of execution of a Will keeping in mind the language of statutory provisions. 18. Besides, a perusal of affidavit filed by AW3 Karnail Singh Ext. AW3/A in evidence demonstrates that it was unequivocally mentioned in the same that on 8.1.1998 in the presence of this witness and other witnesses, on the asking of the testator, a will was scribed by the scribe which thereafter was read over by the scribe to the testator who after understanding the same, appending her signatures over the same and said witness and other witnesses also appended their signatures over the same thereafter. A harmonious reading of this statement filed by way of affidavit leaves no room for ambiguity to reach to any other conclusion than what has been mentioned by me above. Learned trial Court expected the witness to say after every sentence that said acts were done by the testator in his presence whereas fact of the matter is that this witness in the beginning has mentioned in the affidavit that on 8.1.1998, all acts were done by the testator in his presence and he appended his signatures over the Will in issue in the presence of the testator. To similar effect is the affidavit filed by the Scribe i.e. AW2/A who has also clearly stated that on 8.1.1998, testator had approached him for getting scribed his Will which he scribed as per the wish of the testator and thereafter he read over the same to the testator, who after acknowledging the contents to be correct appended his signatures. He further submitted that thereafter this Will was signed by the witnesses. He further submitted that thereafter this Will was signed by the witnesses. Again a harmonious reading of this affidavit leads only to one conclusion that all this was done in the presence of the scribe, the testator and the witnesses and by no stretch of imagination, the inference which has been drawn by the learned trial Court, can be drawn. Therefore, as in my considered view, the Will so executed by the testator stood duly proved by the appellant/petitioner before the learned trial Court, the findings returned to the contrary by the learned trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly set aside. 19. As a result of above discussion, this appeal is allowed. Order passed by learned District Judge, Chamba, in case Succession Act No. 01 of 2007, dated 02.01.2010, is set aside and the petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, filed by the present appellant is allowed, as prayed for. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. No orders as to costs.