JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.31/2003 dated 30.07.2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysore, partly decreeing the suit and rejecting the claim in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. Brief facts of the case: (i) The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff by name L.Mahadev. The said L.Mahadev had two children, a daughter by name M.Shobha, who is the plaintiff and a son by name M.Dinesh, who is the first defendant. The second defendant is the wife of said L.Mahadev. The plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of said L.Mahadev, which were acquired out of his own efforts and earnings. (ii) It is contended that the said L.Mahadev passed away on 02.08.2000 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his only legal representatives. After the death of L.Mahadev, the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule properties without bringing it to the knowledge of the plaintiff. With an intention to defraud the rights of the plaintiff, the defendants also made efforts to change the khatha in their names. The plaintiff had approached the defendants to give her share in the plaint schedule properties, but they refused to give any share. It is contended that plaintiff marriage was performed 9 years back and she is entitle to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants also subsequent to the death of said L.Mahadev recovering rents which are derived from the suit schedule properties and hence, the plaintiff is also entitled for mesne profits. (iii) In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. The defendants, in the written statement admitted that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of L.Mahadev and also admitted the relationship between the parties. The defendants have denied the allegation that the defendants made an effort to dispose of the property and so also denied that an attempt was made to transfer the khatha in their names in order to defraud the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants have denied the allegation that the defendants made an effort to dispose of the property and so also denied that an attempt was made to transfer the khatha in their names in order to defraud the rights of the plaintiff. (iv) It is contended that the marriage of the plaintiff was performed by spending huge amount and at the time of marriage, gold and silver articles were also given to her. It is also contended that the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant purchased the site in the name of the plaintiff, which is situated at Bogadi. (v) The deceased L.Mahadev, in order to see that there will be no litigation after his death, during his lifetime, while he was in sound state of mind bequeathed the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the defendant through a Will dated 27.07.2000 and the same has been drafted by Advocate Sri.C.Puttaswamy and the said Will has been attested by witness S.Gnaneshwar and Dr.B.Sathyanarayana who is a family physician. As on that day, the executant of the said Will, i.e., L.Mahadev was in the Mission Hospital as he was suffering from Jandies and the said Will is also attested by Notary and the executant has signed the document in the hospital itself. After the death of said L.Mahadev, the khatha of the 3rd item of the plaint schedule property has been transferred in the name of the defendants and the defendants did not give any application for transfer of item Nos.1 and 2 of the properties as they were not apprehending any suit by the plaintiff as she was very well aware of the execution of the Will by the deceased. The defendants have denied the very contention of the plaintiff that she has approached the defendants and requested to give her share and also denied the refusal of giving any such share. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the defendants were intended to dispose of the site bearing No.359 situated at Alanahalli extension Mysore to one NRI and plaintiff was present when the talks were held with the broker Chandrashekar of Siddartha Layout and the said talks took place on 15.12.2002. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the defendants were intended to dispose of the site bearing No.359 situated at Alanahalli extension Mysore to one NRI and plaintiff was present when the talks were held with the broker Chandrashekar of Siddartha Layout and the said talks took place on 15.12.2002. The plaintiff though had no right over the plaint schedule properties in order to make a wrongful gain at the instigation of her husband has approached the Court by filing false suit claiming the 1/3rd share. The defendants admit that they are receiving rent in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the Will executed by L.Mahadev. It is further contended that there is no any cause of action for the suit. (vi) The plaintiff subsequently got amended the plaint inserting item Nos.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. Hence, the defendants also filed additional written statement. It is contended in the additional written statement that the plaintiff is not entitled for share in item Nos.4 and 5 of the plaint schedule properties. It is contended that there is no land bearing Sy.No.24/2 situated at Siddalingapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk belonging to the family. The plaintiff has no right over the property bearing No.48/4C situated at Kesare, N.R.Mohalla, Mysore. (vii) Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed 4 issues at the first instance and subsequent to the amendment framed 2 additional issues. ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? 4. What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit item No.5 property is belonging to her father Sri.L.Mahadev and she is entitled to have her share in the said property? 2. Whether the defendants prove that item No.4 of suit property is the self acquired property of 1st defendant? (viii) The plaintiff, in order to substantiate her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 31. First defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other three witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4. The defendants have got marked documents Exs.D.1 to 6. (viii) The plaintiff, in order to substantiate her case, examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to 31. First defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined other three witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4. The defendants have got marked documents Exs.D.1 to 6. (ix) The Court below, after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of both respective counsels, decreed the suit of the plaintiff partly by granting share in respect of item Nos.4 and 5 of the schedule properties and rejected the claim in respect of item Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff before this Court. 4. The grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are that the Trial Court has failed to scrutinize the Will in the light of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and has given much importance to the document Ex.D.4. However, the existence of Ex.D.4 has not been proved as per the law. The Will is stated to have executed on 27.07.2000, whereas Sathyanarayanathe attesting witness examined as D.W.3 signed the Will on 29.07.2000 and the same completely destroys the execution of the Will. D.W.3 has not explained the discrepancy and also he has not explained the physical condition of the testator, as admittedly, he was hospitalized since he was suffering from ailment of liver problem. The evidence of D.W.3 is highly improbable. The evidence of D.W.1 is far from convincing and it does not instill confidence in the Court. Defendant No.1 contended that item No.4 was his self acquired property and item No.5 did not belong to the family. The findings in this behalf makes the Will suspicious as the testator has clearly stated that he had come of the joint family. The wordings of the Will are contrary to the facts, and the same would be a suspicious circumstance. Hence, prayed the Court to set aside the judgment and decree. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his arguments vehemently contended that Court below has committed an error in not appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and it has believed the very execution of the Will, which is marked as Ex.D.4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the executant was admitted in the hospital. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his arguments vehemently contended that Court below has committed an error in not appreciating both oral and documentary evidence and it has believed the very execution of the Will, which is marked as Ex.D.4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the executant was admitted in the hospital. It is further contended that the beneficiary was present at the time of execution of the Will and the said Will did not see the light of the day till filing of the suit. There are factual errors in the Will and the attesters have not signed the Will on the same day. It is further contended that the site has not been given to the daughter but the same is her self acquisition. It is also contended that the son has also purchased the site. The attesting witness Dr.Sathyanarayana states that the executant was addicted to alcohol. The evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 is contradictory to each other. The exclusion of the daughter while writing the Will has not been explained. The Advocate, who has been examined before the Court also admits that the beneficiary was present at the time of execution of the Will. 6. It is further contended that D.W.1 also in the cross-examination admits that he was present and this aspect clearly discloses that the said Will came into existence in a suspicious circumstances. It is emerged in the evidence that the Eviction Petition was filed against the tenant and during the pendency of the revision, the executant passed away and his LR’s including the plaintiff and defendant were brought on record and they were represented by one Advocate and none of them speaks about the Will. If the Will was in existence at that time, they ought to have stated about the exclusion of the daughter from the Will. The other ground urged by learned counsel is that the Will is full of mistakes i.e., while mentioning the name of Manorama, it is mentioned as Manoramma, his father name is mentioned as Lingegowda instead of Lingaiah and the name of the executor is also mentioned as S.Mahadev instead of L.Mahadev. There is also a correction in the date of attesting witnesses as 27.7.2000 though it is signed on 29.7.2000 and D.W.3 has not attested his signature when he made the correction. There is also a correction in the date of attesting witnesses as 27.7.2000 though it is signed on 29.7.2000 and D.W.3 has not attested his signature when he made the correction. The other instances that D.W.3 took seal along with him and he signed the same on 29.07.2000 and not on 27.07.2000 is also another suspicious circumstances. P.W.3 has not spoken anything about the mistakes occurred in the Will and hence, it is clear that he has signed the Will on 29.7.2000. The other circumstance is that on the same day, the executant was discharged from the hospital and he died on 2.8.2000. 7. The evidence of D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 is contrary to each other with regard to their presence. D.W.4 says that the executant was admitted in the ground floor. D.W.3 says that he was admitted in the first floor. All the witnesses admitted the fact that his sonD.W.1 was present. There is substantial evidence before the Court as to who made the correction of date as 27.7.2000, which was dated as 29.07.2000 and also there is no attestation to the correction made. The Will has also not been proved. 8. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the presence of the beneficiary has been proved and however, the same has not been explained. Te disinheritance of the daughter is also not stated in the Will and she was the only daughter. The son is not a bankrupt. It is very much evident from the evidence that the deceased was a drunkard and Will has been signed in the hospital and the Doctor, who attested the said Will has not stated his mental condition. Learned counsel urging all these grounds would contend that the Court below has committed an error in believing the Ex.D.4Will and it requires interference of this Court. 9. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 2008 KAR. 2115 in the case of Sri.J.T.Surappa and Another vs. Sri.Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust and Others and brought to my notice para No.24 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that the Court has to tread a careful path in the enquiry to be conducted with regard to Will. The said path consists of five steps “PANCHAPADI”. 2115 in the case of Sri.J.T.Surappa and Another vs. Sri.Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust and Others and brought to my notice para No.24 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that the Court has to tread a careful path in the enquiry to be conducted with regard to Will. The said path consists of five steps “PANCHAPADI”. The path of enquiry and steps to be traversed are as under: 1) Whether the Will bears the signature or mark of the testator and is duty attested by two witnesses and whether any attesting witness is examined to prove the Will? (2) Whether the natural heirs have been disinherited? If so, what is the reason? (3) Whether the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will? (4) Whether any suspicious circumstances exist surrounding the execution of the Will? (5) Whether the Will has been executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act? This Court has discussed in detail with regard to fulfilling of the said ‘PANCHAPADI’ at para Nos.25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. An observation has been made by this Court in para No.58 that he has failed to put his signature at the bottom of the page and has chosen to put the signature at the left hand margin in the first two pages. The explanation offered by P.W.2 for affixing the signature in the left hand margin, on the face of it is unacceptable, as there is no sufficient space to affix the signature, at the bottom of the page. Therefore, the said signature do not indicate the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a Will, thus requirement under Section 63(b) of the Act is not fulfilled. 10. Learned counsel referring to the principles laid down in the above referred judgment would contend that in order to prove the Will, the requirements of ‘PANCHAPADI’ has to be fulfilled. In the case on hand, the same has not been proved. Hence, learned counsel contended that this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 11. 10. Learned counsel referring to the principles laid down in the above referred judgment would contend that in order to prove the Will, the requirements of ‘PANCHAPADI’ has to be fulfilled. In the case on hand, the same has not been proved. Hence, learned counsel contended that this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant referring to the unreported judgment of this Court passed in Regular First Appeal No.739/1997 dated 9.06.2008, brought to my notice para Nos.19 to 21 with regard to the health conditions of the executant. He contend that the Division Bench of this Court has taken note of the health conditions of the executant and in the case on hand also, the executant was in the hospital since he was suffering from Jandies and particularly, the Doctor, who has been examined as D.W.3 has categorically admitted that he was addicted to alcohol and he was suffering from Serosis. When such being the circumstances and since he was not having the sound state of mind, the Trial Court ought not to have believed the document Ex.D.4 and accepted the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 4. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in his arguments vehemently contended that mistakes in the Will cannot be a ground to eschew the Will and in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 12 SCC 552 in the case of Avtar Singh and Others Vs. Gurdial Singh and Others and contended that admission forms the best evidence. Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is clear that things admitted need not be proved. 13. Learned counsel would also contend that Ex.P.6 is the notice given by the plaintiff to the municipal authorities not to change the khatha. Hence, it is clear that she was having knowledge with regard to the Will and now the plaintiff cannot contend that the Will did not come to the light of the day till filing of the suit. He further contended that Ex.D.2 sale deed clearly discloses that the property was purchased in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1989 by paying sale consideration of Rs.15,000/. 14. He further contended that Ex.D.2 sale deed clearly discloses that the property was purchased in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1989 by paying sale consideration of Rs.15,000/. 14. It is also the case of the defendant No.1 that his father had purchased the property in favour of the plaintiff after her marriage and in the cross-examination, the plaintiff claims that the property was gifted in her favour by her grandmother. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff has not produced any document but Ex.D.2 is clear that it was a sale deed and not the gift deed. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiff is not speaking the truth. She also categorically admits that during her marriage, gold and silver articles were gifted to her. Apart from that, one site was purchased in her favour and she sold the said property in terms of Ex.D.3 for an amount of Rs.2,17,000/and hence, the very contention of the plaintiff that she has been disinherited cannot be accepted. The Will which is marked as Ex.D.4 contains the recitals with regard to the marriage of her daughter and also purchasing of the site in her favour. Hence, the very contention that exclusion of natural heir in the Will amounts to a suspicious circumstances cannot be accepted. 15. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in (1995) 4 SCC 459 in the case of Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another Vs. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs. and Others and brought to my notice para No.4 of the judgment, wherein it has been held that the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with normal line of succession. So natural heir will be debarred in every case; in some case they are fully debarred and in some partially. 16. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 8 SCC 67 in the case of Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Others. Learned counsel brought to my notice para No.26 of the judgment, wherein it has been held that the natural heirs were excluded and the legally wedded wife was given a lesser share and therefore, it has to be held to be a suspicious circumstance. Learned counsel brought to my notice para No.26 of the judgment, wherein it has been held that the natural heirs were excluded and the legally wedded wife was given a lesser share and therefore, it has to be held to be a suspicious circumstance. The said contention was not accepted by the Apex Court and hence, further held that the circumstances of depriving the natural heirs should not arise any suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere in the normal line of succession and so natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. 17. Learned counsel also brought to my notice the judgment reported in 2006 SCC online Bom 1208 in the case of Pushpa Prabhashchand Jain & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Phoolchand Jain and particularly paragraph No.10, wherein it has been observed that it is common in this country for parents to incur all the necessary expenses for settling their daughter well and treat it as a responsibility well discharged and then to bequeath the family property to their son and his children. Learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that it is emerged in the evidence that at the time of performing the marriage of her daughter, gold and silver articles were given to her and thereafter, the property was also purchased in her name and thus, reasons have been assigned in the Will for exclusion of the daughter. Hence, this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 18. Learned counsel would contend that no doubt, it is emerged from the evidence that he was drunkard. However, D.W.3 who was examined before the Court categorically states that he was having sound state of mind at the time of executing the Will and further states that he was called to attest the Will on 27.7.2000. No doubt there is a correction in the date and it is also the main contention of the appellant’s counsel that the same has not been attested. It is also his contention that he went along with seal which is not natural but the learned counsel contend that the executant had informed the Doctor, who is the family physician to attest the said Will. Hence, he took the seal along with him and the same cannot be unnatural. 19. It is also his contention that he went along with seal which is not natural but the learned counsel contend that the executant had informed the Doctor, who is the family physician to attest the said Will. Hence, he took the seal along with him and the same cannot be unnatural. 19. Learned counsel in support of his contention, relied upon the judgment reported in (1976) 4 SCC 554 in the case of Seth Beni Chand (Since Dead) Now by L.Rs Vs. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and Others. He brought to my notice paragraph No.9 of the judgment, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is well settled law that the onus probandi lies in every cases upon the party propounding the Will, and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is a last Will of a free and capable testator. By “free and capable testator” is generally meant that the testator at the time when he made the Will had a sound and disposing state of mind and memory. The testatrix died five days after making the Will cannot be a ground to disbelieve the said Will. There can be no dispute that these are gravely suspicious circumstances. But the propounder has, in our opinion, offered an explanation of these circumstances which ought to satisfy a prudent mind. Learned counsel referring to this judgment would contend that witnesses who have been examined before the Court i.e., D.Ws.2 to 4 have categorically deposed about the sound state of mind of the executant and he was discharged from the hospital on the very same day. Hence, the appellant cannot find fault with the order of the Trial Court. 20. The other contention of the appellant is that the beneficiary was present at the time of execution of the Will and mere presence of the beneficiary is not fatal to the case on hand. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 107 in the case of Leela Rajagopal and Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan and Ors. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2015 SC 107 in the case of Leela Rajagopal and Ors. Vs. Kamala Menon Cocharan and Ors. and brought to my notice para Nos.9 and 11 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that participation of the daughter, the sole beneficiary in the execution of the Will and taking the attestee to the office of the Sub-Registrar and calling her friends to attest the Will is not a suspicious circumstance. Learned counsel referring to this judgment would contend that D.W.1 has categorically stated that the executant had informed him that he is going to execute the Will. 21. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2012) 4 SCC 387 in the case of Mahesh Kumar (Dead) By LRS. Vs. Vinod Kumar and Others and brought to my notice para-31 of the judgment, wherein it has been held that the active participation of propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of a natural heir cannot lead to the inference that the Will is not genuine. It has been further observed at para Nos.40 and 41 with regard to propounder of the Will discharges the onus of proving the Will by proving that the testator had read and signed the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses who appended their signatures on it in the presence of the testator. Examination of one of the attesting witnesses is sufficient to prove the execution of the Will. Although there is some differences about the point of time when the two attesting witnesses appended their signatures on the Will, but both stood grueling cross examination on the factum of their having signed as witness after the executant has signed the Will, the burden of proving the Will is complete. He further contended that in the case on hand, the propounder has not only examined the two attesting witnesses but also examined the scribe of the document and their evidence is consistent. 22. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 621 in the case of Savithri and Others Vs. He further contended that in the case on hand, the propounder has not only examined the two attesting witnesses but also examined the scribe of the document and their evidence is consistent. 22. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 11 SCC 621 in the case of Savithri and Others Vs. Karthyayani Amma and Others with regard to the proof of the execution of the Will and brought to my notice para Nos.15 and 22 of the said judgment with regard to the testator disinheriting his legal heirs and executing Will in favour of his sister and her children. The cancer patient without independent source of income, totally dependant on his sister and her children. It is further held that the testator was bound to place implicit faith and confidence only upon those who had been looking after him. The fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lessor share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, held, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance. It is also further observed that the Will has to be proved like any other documents except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The test regarding proof of the Will would be to show test of satisfaction of the prudent mind on such matters. The propounder of the Will has to show satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The profounder of the Will has to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. The defendants have examined D.Ws.2 to 4 and the very evidence is acceptable. Hence, the Court cannot disbelieve the Will. The Court below considering the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Will has been proved. 23. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 (V 46 C 56) in the case of H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. Hence, the Court cannot disbelieve the Will. The Court below considering the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 and has rightly come to the conclusion that the Will has been proved. 23. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 (V 46 C 56) in the case of H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. Thimmajamma and Others and brought to my notice para No.19 of the judgment. Referring to this judgment, learned counsel would contend that the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator’s mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder of the Will. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts indicated above. In the case of hand also, the propounder has proved the very execution of the Will. Hence, the appellant cannot find fault with the Court below in appreciating the document and the oral evidence. 24. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also would contend that once the propounder discharges his burden, thereafter, onus shifts on the other side. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 1998 KAR. 1730 in the case of Puttegowda Vs. Thimmajamma and Ors. and brought to my notice para 12 of the judgment. Referring to said para, he contended that where the person who challenges the Will alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the allegations. When once the propounder discharges the burden of proving the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, it is for the person who challenges the Will to prove the circumstance which invalidates the Will. Learned counsel referring to this judgment would contend that there is no any material before the Court to substantiate the circumstances, which invalidates the Will and hence, he contended that this judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 25. Learned counsel in his arguments vehemently contended that before reversing the finding on fact, the Appellate Court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the Trial Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in (1995) 4 SCC 15 in the case of S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by LRS. and Others Vs. 25. Learned counsel in his arguments vehemently contended that before reversing the finding on fact, the Appellate Court has to bear in mind the reasons ascribed by the Trial Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment reported in (1995) 4 SCC 15 in the case of S.V.R. Mudaliar (Dead) by LRS. and Others Vs. Rajabu F.Buhari (Mrs)(Dead) By by LRS. and Others and brought to my notice para 15 of the judgment. Referring to the said para, he contended that the Appellate Court before reversing the finding of the Court below has to see the reasons assigned by the Trial Court. 26. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR (38) 1951 SC 120 in the case of Sarju Pershad Ramdeo Sahu Vs. Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh and Others and brought para 7 of the judgment. Referring to said para, he contended that the Appellate Court should be slow to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court. It is further contended that when there is a conflict of oral evidence of parties on any matter in issue and the decision depends upon credibility of witnesses, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of the Trial Judge on the question of fact. 27. The Court below, while appreciating the evidence on record, has to keep in mind that minor discrepancies as on trivial matters must not prompt the Court to reject the evidence. In respect of this issue, he relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC (Suppl) 244 in the case of Rohtash Kumar Vs. Statse of Haryana and in this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The Court has to examine whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. 28. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his reply arguments would contend that D.W.1 himself in his evidence admitted that his father told him that he is going to make a Will and also the Doctor, in his evidence, who has been examined as D.W.3 categorically admitted that the executant was addicted to alcohol. Learned counsel also would contend that the respondents’ counsel has contended that no suggestion was made to D.W.3 that he has signed the document on 29.7.2000. Learned counsel also would contend that the respondents’ counsel has contended that no suggestion was made to D.W.3 that he has signed the document on 29.7.2000. The said contention cannot be accepted and there is no need to make any such suggestion. 29. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Court below failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence and the evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 which are contradictory to each other and also there are errors in the Will both on factual aspects and also while referring the names of the parties. The Will came into existence in a suspicious circumstance. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 30. Having heard the arguments of the appellant’s counsel as well as the respondent’s counsel and so also keeping in view of the contentions of the respective counsels, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are as follows: 1. Whether the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff in respect of item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties accepting the Will and it requires interference of this Court? 2. Whether the Court below has committed an error in not considering the fact that the beneficiary was very much present at the time of executing the Will? 3. Whether the Court below has committed an error in not considering the fact that the daughter has been disinherited from the property of the father and she has been excluded from the Will without assigning any reasons and it requires interference of this Court? 4. What order? 31. Point Nos.1 to 4:The suit is filed at the first instance for the relief of partition in respect of three items of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, item Nos.4 and 5 were added subsequently. It is the contention of the plaintiff in the suit that the suit schedule properties belong to the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and he had purchased the property out of his self earnings. After the death of her father, the first defendant and second defendant did not give any share in the property of her father Sri.L.Mahadev. After the death of her father, the first defendant and second defendant did not give any share in the property of her father Sri.L.Mahadev. The defendants in the written statement have contended that the suit schedule properties is the self acquired property of late L.Mahadev, but the 4th item of the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the first defendant and that the item No.5 does not belong to the family of the plaintiff and defendants. It is also their case that the father of L.Mahadev had executed the Will on 27.07.2000 in favour of the defendants bequeathing the suit item Nos.1 to 3. The Court below considering both oral and documentary evidence accepted the case of defendants in so far as item Nos.1 to 3 that their father L.Mahadev bequeathed the property in favour of the defendants. 32. The main contention of the plaintiff before this Court is that the first defendant was very much present at the time of executing the Will. Hence, the Will came into existence in a suspicious circumstance. Now the question before this Court is whether the presence of the beneficiary is fatal to the case of the defendants. It is emerged from the evidence that the defendant No.1 was very much present at the time of execution of the Will and D.W.1, who is the defendant No.1 also in his cross-examination admits that he was present at the time of executing the Will. He claims that his father had informed on that day itself that he is going to execute the Will. 33. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the Sri. J.T.Surappa’s case stated supra, referred by the appellant’s counsel wherein reference has been made in para No.24 of the said judgment with regard to ‘PANCHAPADI’, and it is the duty cast upon the Court to consider carefully all the five steps which are the legal requirements in coming to the conclusion that the Will is proved. 34. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment with regard to the presence of the first defendant. 34. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment with regard to the presence of the first defendant. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2015 SC 107 (stated supra) held that participation of the daughter the sole beneficiary in the execution of the Will and taking the attestee to the office of the Sub Registrar and calling her friends to attest the Will is not a suspicious circumstance. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that when the Will was executed, the executant was in the hospital and the son was taking care of the executant. It is also his evidence that father had told him that he is going to execute a Will. There is no any material before the Court to show that the beneficiary took active participation in getting the Will in his favour. Nowhere in the evidence, it has been emerged that he actively participated in getting the Will in his favour. 35. The respondents’ counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2012 (4) SCC 387 (state supra) and the Apex Court in this judgment held that active participation of the beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of the natural heirs cannot lead to the inference that the Will is not genuine. The Court has to take note of the surrounding circumstance and carefully examine whether the beneficiary has actively participated in getting the Will executed. No material has been placed before the Court to show that he actively participated in getting the Will in his favour. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the very contention of the appellant’s counsel that the presence of the beneficiary takes away the case of the defendants cannot be accepted. 36. The other contention of the appellant/plaintiff’s counsel that to exclude the daughter, while executing the Will, no reasons have been assigned. On perusal of the Will which is marked as Ex.D.4, the executant has assigned the reasons stating that he has performed the marriage of his daughter and she is happily residing along with her husband and also stated that he had purchased a site in her favour immediately after the marriage, which is situated in Bogadi of Mysore. 37. On perusal of the Will which is marked as Ex.D.4, the executant has assigned the reasons stating that he has performed the marriage of his daughter and she is happily residing along with her husband and also stated that he had purchased a site in her favour immediately after the marriage, which is situated in Bogadi of Mysore. 37. It is also the contention of the defendants that they performed the marriage by providing gold and silver articles at the time of her marriage. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she categorically admits that at the time of marriage they have given gold and silver articles but she claims that as usual they performed the marriage. It is also important to note that P.W.1 claims that the site is not purchased by her father and property is gifted to her by her grand mother. In order to substantiate her contention she has not placed any material before the Court but on perusal of the sale deed, it discloses that site was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. She also categorically admits that she has sold the property for a consideration of Rs.2,17,000/- and on perusal of the document Ex.D2, the property was purchased by paying the sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and same is not a gift. 38. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment reported in 2006 SCC online Bom. 1208 (stated supra) and in this judgment, the Court held that it is usual in this country for parents to incur expenses for settling their daughters well and take the same as obligation well discharged and bequeath the family properties to the sons. It is also important to note that the very admission elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 is clear with regard to the performing of her marriage by giving gold and silver articles. Though she claims that it was a gift deed, Ex.D.2 discloses that the same was purchased in the year 1989 i.e., after the marriage of the daughter. He had purchased the said property which is situated at Bogadi. When the reason has been assigned in the Will for having purchased the property and also that the daughter has been well settled and happily residing in their matrimonial home, the very contention of the appellant that the daughter has been disinherited while executing the Will cannot be accepted. 39. When the reason has been assigned in the Will for having purchased the property and also that the daughter has been well settled and happily residing in their matrimonial home, the very contention of the appellant that the daughter has been disinherited while executing the Will cannot be accepted. 39. The other contention of the appellant’s counsel that the Will did not see the light of the day till filing of the suit and Ex.D.6 which has been marked by the defendants states that one year prior to the filing of the suit, the plaintiff has caused notice not to transfer the property and hence, it is clear that it was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Hence, the contention that the Will did not see the light of the day till filing of the suit cannot be accepted. The other contention of the appellant/plaintiff’s counsel is that there are factual errors in the Will with regard to dates and names. On perusal of Ex.D.4, it discloses that there are typographical errors. It is also brought to my notice that while mentioning the name of Manorama it is wrongly mentioned as Manoramma and the initial of the executant is wrongly typed as S.Mahadev instead of L.Mahadev and other errors. It is also evident from the evidence that draft was prepared and after the correction of the draft, the Will was prepared. It is also important to note that the father name of the executant is mentioned as Lingegowda instead of Lingaiah. Having considered these factual errors and mistakes, it cannot be contended that the Will has not been executed by the executant. 40. The other contention is that the attesters have signed the said Will on the same day. The appellant’s counsel mainly contended that D.W.3 has put the date as 29.07.2000 and same has been later corrected as 27.07.2000 and no attestation has been made while correcting the same. On perusal of the document, no attestation is made, but there was a correction. D.W.1, who has been examined before the Court has categorically deposed that on 27.07.2000, he was very much present at the time of executing the Will and same has not been disputed while cross examining D.W.3. 41. On perusal of the document, no attestation is made, but there was a correction. D.W.1, who has been examined before the Court has categorically deposed that on 27.07.2000, he was very much present at the time of executing the Will and same has not been disputed while cross examining D.W.3. 41. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there is no need to make any such suggestion and the document itself is apparent that the date is mentioned as 29.07.2000, and the witnesses who have been examined before the Court i.e., D.Ws.2 to 4 have categorically deposed that all of them were present at the time of executing the Will. D.W.4 is the scribe who prepared the document in the presence of the two attesting witnesses i.e., D.Ws.2 and 3. The other contention was made with regard to the contradictory evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 with regard to signature on the document and nothing has been elicited worth while examining and contradicting the same. 42. The other contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the executant was addicted to alcohol and that he was not having sound state of mind. No doubt it is evident from the evidence of D.W.3 that he was addicted to alcohol and he was suffering from Serosis and the Doctor categorically deposed before the Court that the executant was having sound state of mind. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of D.W.3 that he was not having sound state of mind. The plaintiff did not dispute the fact that on the very same day, the executant was discharged from the hospital. D.W.2 also categorically deposed that he has attested the documents. Both D.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically stated that the executant himself has called both of them to be present while executing the document. D.W.4 who is an Advocate also in his evidence states that on instructions of the executant, he had prepared the document. 43. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also brought to my notice that an eviction petition in respect of one of the tenants was filed and the tenant has filed the revision petition before the Court and executant passed away during the pendency of the said revision petition. The plaintiff and defendants were brought on record and they did not whisper anything in the said proceedings that daughter has been included. The plaintiff and defendants were brought on record and they did not whisper anything in the said proceedings that daughter has been included. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that on account of death of the original owner, their LR’s are brought on record at the instance of the revision petitioner in the said petition. Hence, it cannot be contended that they did not whisper anything about the Will. 44. The main contention of the appellant’s counsel that in the evidence of the D.W.4 it is stated that the executant was taking treatment in the ground floor and D.W.3 states that he was taking treatment in the first floor and there are contradiction in their evidence. These contradictions cannot be a fatal to the case of the defendants. The reasons assigned in the Will itself discloses that why the daughter has been excluded from the Will. There is no dispute that the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and subsequently she sold the property. The other contention of the appellant’s counsel that the Doctor who went to hospital did not certify with regard to the sound state of mind of the executant. It is to be noted that the Doctor who signed the document as attesetor categorically contends that he is a family physician. Hence, it is clear that he has not a stranger. Apart from that he categorically deposed that the executant has told him to come and attest the document. Hence, he took the seal and after signing the document, he put the seal also. 45. The appellant’s counsel also would contend that taking the seal along with him is a doubtful circumstance and he has not signed the document on that particular day but has signed the document subsequently and put his seal. In order to substantiate his contention, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of D.W.3. The other contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the executant was not having sound state of mind and relied upon the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. No doubt the Court has to take note of the health condition of the executant. The other contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the executant was not having sound state of mind and relied upon the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. No doubt the Court has to take note of the health condition of the executant. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment at para Nos.19 to 21 discussed with regard to the health condition of the executant in the said appeal and further observed in para 21 that the patient was found in deep coma since 10 p.m. of the previous day night. At about 2.20 a.m. (early morning), the patient was relatively alert and responded to questions normally. At about 8.30 a.m. in the morning, pupils are pinpoint and was in hypoglycemic coma and at about 1 p.m., he had complained aliddrowzy Asterisis and 1000 CC of Coffee grounds stomach contents was removed and he was advised hourly aspiration after ice water. Considering the condition of the executant, the Court has come to the conclusion that the Will came into existence in the doubtful circumstances. 46. In the case of hand, I do not find any such circumstances. P.W.1 herself admitted in the cross-examination that when her father was in hospital, she used to visit the hospital. It is also noticed that on the same day of execution of the Will, the executant was discharged. No doubt, he died on 2.8.2000 within a period of 5 days of execution of the Will, but no material has been placed before the Court so as to ascertain that as on the date of execution of the Will, he was not having any sound state of mind. When such being the circumstances, the contention of the appellant’s counsel that the document came into existence in a doubtful circumstance cannot be accepted. I do not find any error committed by the Court below in believing the execution of the will in favour of the defendants since the defendants have also proved the very execution of the Will in their favour by examining D.Ws.2 to 4. There must be substantial materials before this Court while exercising the power of reappreciation of evidence in order to come to the conclusion that the Court below did not consider the materials available on record while appreciating the evidence. There must be substantial materials before this Court while exercising the power of reappreciation of evidence in order to come to the conclusion that the Court below did not consider the materials available on record while appreciating the evidence. I do not find any such circumstances before this Court that the Court below has not considered the material on record and proceeded in an erroneous direction as it has appreciated both oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. 47. The defendants have placed the material before the Court with regard to the execution of the document and evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 is consistent and credible with regard to the execution of the document. The evidence of D.Ws.2 to 4 does not inspire the confidence of this Court that the document came into existence under a suspicious circumstance. When such being the circumstances, I do not find fault with the Court below in appreciating the evidence. Hence, there are no grounds to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. This Court also cannot reverse the findings of the Court below in the absence of any error. While reversing the findings, the Court has to take note of the credibility of the witnesses and the D.W.3 is none other than the family physician of the executant and he categorically deposed with regard to the health condition of the executant. Both D.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically deposed that the executant was also having the good state of mind and on his request only they went to the hospital and signed the document. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court both in respect of question of fact and also question of law, since this Court has to reappreciate both question of fact and question of law. In the said circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. 48. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No cost.