JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The plaintiffs' suit for rendition, of, a declaratory decree, hence pronouncing, vis-a-vis, the registered testamentary disposition, as made by the deceased testator, on 15.9.2003, and, as, borne in Ext. D1, besides propounded, by, the defendants, becoming declared null and void, (a) and, also, the, further espoused declaratory decree, for setting aside, the, settlement deed, made by the deceased Nathu Ram, on 26.9.2003, became both decreed, under, the impugned verdict, recorded by the learned trial Court. Furthermore, the mutations, in consequence therewith, as, attested by the Revenue Officer concerned, were also, declared to be null and void, (b) there on wards, the espoused decree, of, permanent prohibitory injunction was also rendered, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, and, against the defendants, (c) and where through, the contesting litigants, were barred from changing the nature and possession of the suit property, upto occurrence, of a valid dismemberment thereof, hence through metes and bounds. 2. The defendants, becoming aggrieved, therefrom, cast a challenge thereagainst, through theirs instituting the instant appeal, before this Court. The issues, appertaining to the validity, of, execution, of, Will, propounded, by the defendant, Will whereof, is, borne in Ext. D1, and also, vis-a-vis, validity, of execution, of, settlement deed, both whereof became, propounded by the defendants, and also became authored, hence, by the deceased Nathu Ram, hence, rather became serialized respectively, as issues No. 2, 3 and 5, and, thereon findings, vis-a-vis, the plaintiffs, became pronounced. 3. At the outset, upon, the testamentary disposition, executed, on 15.9.2003, by the deceased testator, and, as embodied in Ext. D-1, standing declared, to be validly and duly executed, hence by the deceased testator, (i) thereupon the validity, of, the subsequent thereto, executed settlement deed, rather also, may not require any adjudication being meted thereon. Primarily, hence, this Court, would delve into the reasons, assigned by the learned trial Judge, in his hence declaring, the, registered testamentary disposition, made by the deceased testator, Nathu Ram, and, as borne in Ext. D1, rather being void and non-est. 4. Even though, as aforestated, Ext. D-1, is, a registered testamentary disposition, yet, the learned trial Judge, for, the, hereinafter extracted reasons, dispelled efficacies thereof: (i) Attesting witness Budh Ram happens to be stock witness, because as per him, he has deposed in number of cases in the Courts. D1, rather being void and non-est. 4. Even though, as aforestated, Ext. D-1, is, a registered testamentary disposition, yet, the learned trial Judge, for, the, hereinafter extracted reasons, dispelled efficacies thereof: (i) Attesting witness Budh Ram happens to be stock witness, because as per him, he has deposed in number of cases in the Courts. (ii) The name and address of attesting witness Budh Ram stood already scribed on the Will before he was called by Nathu Ram and that his signatures were obtained on the Will later on. (iii) Attesting witness Budh Ram states that previous will was not shown to scribe, but details of previous will stand reflected in the Will in question in all respect. (iv) Attesting witness state that Nathu Ram wanted to bequeath his entire property and contents of Will also speak about the bequeathing of entire property owned and possessed by Nathu Ram, but, this evidence goes contrary to the pleadings set out in the written statement to the effect that land measuring 2-4-0 bigha comprised in khasra No. 1809/254 had been excluded from the Will. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, all the afore reasons, occurring in the impugned verdict, as, rendered by the learned trial Judge, are, rather un-merit worthy, besides are made in gross-mis-appreciation, of, the requisite statutory enshrinements, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, 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 [for 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 given 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 given 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." and also are made, upon making gross overlooking, vis-a-vis, the, satiating therewith evidence, becoming adduced by one Budh Ram, a marginal witness to Ext. D-1. 5. Since, the afore extracted mandate, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, (i) enjoins upon the propounder of the Will, to, through adducing, the, apt testifications, of, the apt marginal witness, to the apposite testamentary disposition, hence ensure emanations, of, elicitations', from him, (ii) vis-vis, the deceased testator, at the relevant time, upon being possessed, with, awakened cognitive faculties, (iii) besides thereat his holding the requisite compos-mentis, hence, his, in his presence, embossing his thumb impression or signatures, upon, the, apposite testamentary disposition, and, also the apposite propounders hence ensuring, his, making, further statutory be speaking(s), vis-a-vis, his thereafter, also, in the presence of the deceased testator, rather making his marks, upon, the apposite testamentary disposition. 6. Now at, all the afore be speaking(s), vividly occur in the examination-in-chief, of, Budh Ram, and despite, his being subjected, to, the ordeal of, a, rigorous cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the latter were unable, to, during the course thereof, hence, elicit from him, any bespeaking, vis-a-vis, his not recording, his, presence, before the scribe of the Ext. D-1, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its becoming scribed, nor, were able, to, elicit, any echoing, from him, and appertaining to the deceased testator, in his presence, after comprehending all the recitals borne therein, rather not, in his pressure, making his marks thereon, and nor thereafter, were able to elicit from him, any echoing, vis-a-vis, his, thereafter, in the presence, of, the deceased testator, his also hence not making his signatures thereon. 7. The effect, of, none of the afore statutorily disabling elicitations, emanating, from Budh Ram, during the course, of, the latter’s cross-examination, does, enable the erection, with all firmness, hence an inference, vis-a-vis, Ext. D-1, becoming proven to be validly, and, duly executed, rather by the deceased testator, and, thereupon, the mere factum, of, Budh Ram, being a stock witness, becomes redundant (a) and also the mere factum, of Budh Ram, becoming scribed in Ext. D-1, by, the apposite scribe, qua his being a marginal witness, vis-a-vis, Ext. D-1, rather, prior to his arriving, at the relevant time, becoming, likewise, redundant and irrelevant, (b) unless during the course, of, cross-examination, of, Budh Ram, the afore elicitations, rather emanated from him, hence, for, unsettling or scuttling the vigor, of, his testimony, as, embodied in his examination-in-chief, wherein, he rather makes echoings, in complete satiation, vis-a-vis, the imperative statutory enshrinements, borne in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act. Moreover, the mere factum of Budh Ram, deposing vis-a-vis, the earlier testamentary disposition, made by deceased Nathu Ram, rather not, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its scribing by the scribe, becoming shown, by, the deceased testator, to, the apposite scribe, despite, the recitals, qua therewith, becoming borne in Ext. D-1, also would not benumb, the, efficacy of his afore rendered testification, rather containing bespeaking, vis-a-vis, there through, hence the completest satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the statutory parameters, embodied, in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, (i) especially when he arrived at the relevant site, after Ext. D-1, also would not benumb, the, efficacy of his afore rendered testification, rather containing bespeaking, vis-a-vis, there through, hence the completest satiation being meted, vis-a-vis, the statutory parameters, embodied, in Section 63, of, the Indian Succession Act, (i) especially when he arrived at the relevant site, after Ext. D-1, becoming completely scribed, by the scribe, of Ext.D-1, and whereat he was not enjoined, to know all the recitals borne therein, rather was only enjoined, to, make be speaking(s), vis-a-vis, the, afore imperative statutory parameters, (ii) and, with his making the afore enjoined statutory be speaking(s) (iii) besides with his making a deposition qua the earlier will, being shown by the deceased testator, at the time, of its, presentation by the latter, before the Sub-Registrar concerned, thereupon the afore factum does not obviously, detract, from the efficacy, of, the afore rendered unscathed deposition, rendered by Budh Ram, hence containing echoings, rather meteing, the, completest satiation, vis-a-vis, the, imperative statutory parameters. 8. Be that as it may, since, in the registered testamentary instrument, hence occur the sealed besides signature statutory endorsement, rather made by the Sub-Registrar concerned, and, with echoings borne thereon, vis-a-vis, after all contents thereof, becoming explained, and, also becoming ensured to be comprehended, by, the deceased testator, hence the afore statutory endorsements, becoming made thereon, (a) and, with there underneath also, the, signatures/thumb impressions, of, the deceased testator, rather occur (b) besides Budh Ram, also recording his signature appearance, before the Sub-Registrar, along with, the other marginal witness thereto, obviously begets an inference qua with the afore made statutory endorsements, hence enjoying a presumption, of, truth (c) and, with no evidence, standing adduced, for rebutting the afore presumption of truth, and, comprised, in, the markings made thereon, by the deceased testator, becoming proven, to be unauthored, by, the deceased testator, (d) thereupon, rather the afore presumption, for, want of adduction, of, the afore rebutting evidence, warrants, qua conclusivity, being assigned thereto. In aftermath, it is formidably concluded qua Ext. D-1, becoming proven to be validly, and, duly executed, by, the deceased testator. 9. Importantly, hence when both, at the phase of drawing of Ext.D-1, before its scribe, and, the latter in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its registration, hence Ext. In aftermath, it is formidably concluded qua Ext. D-1, becoming proven to be validly, and, duly executed, by, the deceased testator. 9. Importantly, hence when both, at the phase of drawing of Ext.D-1, before its scribe, and, the latter in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its registration, hence Ext. D-1, stands proven, to be volitionally executed by the deceased testator, (a) hence with the latter also evidently thereof rather possessing the requisite compos mentis, (c) thereupon the vigor, of, the afore made conclusion, begets sequels, vis-a-vis, the subsequent thereto, made settlement deed, hence by the deceased testator, neither constituting any valid alienation, by him, of, the suit property nor hence the validity, of its, execution, by the deceased testator Nathu Ram, is, enjoined, to be either dwelt upon nor is enjoined to become adjudicated upon. 10. Consequently, there is merit in the instant appeal and the same is Allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Kullu, in Civil Suit No. 24/04 (3/05), on,27.6.2008, is quashed and set aside. The pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.