JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The defendants are the appellants, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant regular second appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of 1-10 bighas of land in khata khatauni No. 23 to 40, kite 9, measuring 108-12 bighas, khata khatauni No. 24/43, kite 3, measuring 3-17 bighas, khata khatauni No. 25/44, kite 2 measuring 10-8 bighas, situated in Mauza Sainwala Mubarakpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur, H.P. on the basis of Will No. 27/2010 being executed by Ramesh Chand and mutation No. 838 dated 21.05.2010 being attested by A.C. 1st Grade qua his estate is wrong, illegal and not binding on the rights of plaintiff. A relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing plaintiff was also sought. It was averred by the plaintiff that Ramesh Chand son of Bhakatawar Ram son of Gondi Ram, r/o village Khairi was co owner in possession over 6 bighas of land comprised in khata Khatauni No. 23/40, kite 9, total land measuring 108-12 bighas, khata khatauni No. 24/43, kite 3, measuring 3-17 bighas and khata khatauni No. 25/44, kite 2, measuring 10-08 bighas situated in Mauza Sainwala Mubarakpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. He was married but his relationship with defendant No. 1 i.e. his wife was not good. Out of his marriage with defendant No. 1 two daughters i.e. defendants No. 2 and 3 also took birth. The defendant No. 1 had decided to leave the house of Ramesh Chand and settled at village Melion about 14 years ago whereafter Ramesh Chand was left alone and was taken care of by plaintiff who also looked after and cultivated his land. On 29.01.2010, Ramesh Chand requested plaintiff to take him to Paonta Sahib to execute the Will where he approached Shashi Pal Chaudhary, Advocate, who as per his instructions in the presence of witnesses Om Prakash and Rukamdeen being identified by Yogesh, Numberdar executed Will of his immovable property. He was physically and mentally fit at the time of execution of Will and accepted the contents of the Will after it was read over and explained to him and put his left hand thumb impression over the same. He was physically and mentally fit at the time of execution of Will and accepted the contents of the Will after it was read over and explained to him and put his left hand thumb impression over the same. It was presented before Sub Registrar, Paonta Sahib for attestation and registration on the very day who also explained full contents of Will to him who put his signature over it on 29.01.2010 but due to failure of electronic system, registration formalities were completed on 01.02.2010. Ramesh Chand died on 20.04.2010 and when the Will was presented for sanctioning of mutation of inheritance, it was attested only in favour of defendant. The plaintiff filed a revenue appeal against sanctioning of mutation but defendant became greedy and started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land or to alienate it in the last week of October, 2010. The cause of action thus accrued on 21.05.2010 when mutation No. 838 was attested in favour of defendants only and on 21.06.2010 when the revenue appeal was filed and lastly in the last week of October, 2010, when defendants threatened to dispossess plaintiff, hence the suit. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections about cause of action, plaintiff having concealed material facts from the court, suit being not maintainable for want of proper court fee and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was averred that with the passage of time, Ramesh chand had started taking excessive liquor and also administered beatings to his wife. Whenever he had been injured during his employment at Dhaula Kuan, he was nursed and looked after by defendant No. 1. It is denied that defendant No. 1 had settled at village Melion by asserting that whenever her husband used to shunt her out from the house she used to take shelter in the house of her brother at Melion. The suit land was being looked after and cultivated by defendant No. 1 till the death of her husband with the help of her brother, Jagbir Singh denying that plaintiff ever cultivated it. He never executed the Will in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to grab share of the deceased. He was mentally and physically weak due to excessive addiction. He used to sign documents and never put his thumb impression. He never executed the Will in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to grab share of the deceased. He was mentally and physically weak due to excessive addiction. He used to sign documents and never put his thumb impression. A forged and frivolous document has been produced and he never appeared before Sub Registrar for the purpose of any execution. The last rites of deceased were carried out by defendant No. 1 and not plaintiff as asserted. On 29.11.2017, the plaintiff and his family members tried to dispossess the defendants forcibly from the suit land upon which defendant No. 1 reported the matter at Police Post Majra as a result of which a compromise deed was arrived at on 05.12.2010 wherein plaintiff undertook not to interfere and trespass over the suit land. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court, framed the following issues:- "1. Whether late Shri Ramesh Chand had executed a legal and valid Will dated 01.02.2010 qua suit land in favour of parties, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the Will dated 01.02.2010 is forged and fraudulent document as alleged? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Relief." 6. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 15.06.2017 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, however, the same also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2018, constraining the appellants to file the instant appeal. 8. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. Whereas on the other hand, Mr. 8. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, duly assisted by Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are totally perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set aside. Whereas on the other hand, Mr. Ajay Shandil, Advocate, argued that since the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on correct construction of the pleadings and appreciation of record, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below warrant no interference and are rather immune from interference before this Court in the Second Appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 9. It is settled position that the Court, while dealing with the case of Will, should sit on the arm-chair of the Testator and decide the intention of the Testator. The requirement of proof of a Will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a Will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If after considering the matters before it, that is, the facts and circumstances as emanating from the material available on record of a given case, the court either believes that the Will was duly executed by the testator or considers the existence of such fact so probable that any prudent person ought, under the circumstances of that particular case, to act upon the supposition that the Will was duly executed by the testator, then the factum of execution of Will shall be said to have been proved. The delicate structure of proof framed by a judicially trained mind cannot stand on weak foundation nor survive any inherent defects therein but at the same time ought not to be permitted to be demolished by wayward pelting of stones of suspicion and supposition by wayfarers and way layers. 10. The conscious of the Court has to be satisfied by the propounder of Will adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicions or unnatural circumstances attaching to a Will provided that there is something that is unnatural or suspicious about the Will. However, the law of evidence does not permit to conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. However, the law of evidence does not permit to conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict-positive or negative. 11. Now, adverting to the facts, it would be noticed that the learned Courts below have concurrently found the relation between testator Ramesh Chand and the defendants to be strained to the extent that they were residing not only separately but there was also litigation inter se them. In the year, 2005, the appellant Gurmeet Kaur had approached the criminal Court with the application for grant of maintenance Ext. PW5/A wherein the statement of Gurmeet Kaur Ext.PW5/B was recorded, wherein she admitted that the relations between her and her husband Ramesh Chand were strained. To similar effect is the statement given by the brother of defendant No. 1 Jagbir Singh Ext.PW5/C. Once that be the position, obviously, there was no occasion for the testator to have bequeathed his property in favour of defendants even though they happened to be wife and children respectively. 12. Additionally, it has come on record that not only the relations between the defendants and the testator Ramesh Chand were strained but they i.e. defendants did not also take care of Ramesh Chand during his life time and it was the plaintiff who not only took care but even performed the last rites of Ramesh Chand. 13. As regards the execution of Will, one attesting witness Rukamdeen appeared as PW3 and sowrn his affidavit as Ext.PW3/A and has specifically stated about the execution of the Will by testator Ramesh Chand. He stated about the special procedure that was adopted in the execution of the Will and proved the same. He further stated about the registration of the Will and identified his thumb mark on this Will Ext.PW2/B. He was subjected to cross-examination at length but nothing adverse elicited therefrom. He pleaded ignorance to question as to who had first put the thumb mark on the Will among the witnesses but that itself cannot be a ground to discard his testimony, more particularly, when he is an illiterate simpleton from the village. He pleaded ignorance to question as to who had first put the thumb mark on the Will among the witnesses but that itself cannot be a ground to discard his testimony, more particularly, when he is an illiterate simpleton from the village. He denied the suggestion that the testator was not in a sound mind at the time of execution of Will. The testimony of this witness remained unimpeachable and was, therefore, rightly relied upon by both the Courts below. 14. Pw4 Shri Yogesh is another eye witness to the Will who tendered his affidavit Ext.PW4/A, wherein he stated about the special procedure that was followed at the time of execution of the Will. He too successfully withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing material could be elicited from his cross-examination. This being the position, even his testimony was rightly relied upon by the learned Courts below. 15. As a last ditch effort, Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior advocate, strongly urged that the deceased testator Ramesh Chand was a die hard alcoholic, therefore, under no circumstances the Will can be held to be a valid. 16. I am afraid even this contention holds no water as there is nothing on record to prove that Ramesh Chand was an alcoholic or that the plaintiff had got the Will executed at the time when he was under influence of the liquor. 17. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are pure findings of fact and are, therefore, immune from challenge in the second appeal. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.