JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This is appellant/plaintiff's second appeal for challenging the Will dated 29.02.1988, executed by one Sh. Latu and consequent attestation of mutation on that basis, in favour of the defendant. 2. Original parties to the litigation died during the pendency of present appeal and were substituted by their successors-in-interest. The parties are being addressed hereinafter as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant', as they were in learned Trial Court. Plaintiff (now successors-in-interest) is the appellant in the present appeal and defendant (now successors-in-interest) is the respondent. 3. Facts which have come out from the record are:- 3(i) Latu, the testator of the suit property in question, was owner in possession of the suit land measuring 9-15 bighas, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 50/96, Khasra Nos. 42, 93 and 309, situated in Mauza, Briela, Pargana Giripur, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87. Latu's wife had predeceased him. He had no issues. The plaintiff (Jatho Devi) is daughter of one Sh. Dhonu, brother of Latu. Jatho Devi, was married years ago and was living separately in her matrimonial home in a separate distant village. 3(ii) Latu died in 1989 due to old age. After his death, Mutation No. 195 was initially attested in respect of suit property on 29.09.1989 in favour of Jatho Devi, as his sole surviving legal heir. 3(iii) The above mutation order was challenged by the defendant before the Collector Sub Division Rajgarh in case No. 26/2010. Vide his order dated 24.06.1991, the Collector remanded the matter. Where after, on 22.12.2000, the Assistant Collector reviewed his earlier order dated 29.09.1989 and passed fresh order conferring the suit property owned by Latu in favour of defendant, on the basis of registered Will dated 29.02.1988, executed by Latu, in favour of defendant. 3(iv) Aggrieved against reviewing of mutation No. 195 vide order dated 22.12.2000, in favour of the defendant, as well as for seeking a decree for declaration that she is an exclusive owner in possession of the suit property by way of inheritance from late Sh. Latu as his sole legal heir; and also for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant in respect of suit property, the plaintiff filed the civil suit on 18.01.2001. 3(v) In his written statement, the defendant propounded Will dated 29.02.1988, executed by late Sh. Latu in his favour, bequeathing the entire suit property in his favour. Latu as his sole legal heir; and also for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant in respect of suit property, the plaintiff filed the civil suit on 18.01.2001. 3(v) In his written statement, the defendant propounded Will dated 29.02.1988, executed by late Sh. Latu in his favour, bequeathing the entire suit property in his favour. 3(vi) Evidence was led by the parties. Both the learned Courts below, on appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence on record, have concurrently come to the conclusion that the Will dated 29.02.1988, (Ext. DW-2/A) has been duly proved in accordance with law. And also held that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. Hence, the suit has been dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent judgments and decrees, dismissing her suit, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. This appeal was admitted on 20.09.2005. Following, substantial questions of law were framed on 22.03.2018:- 1. Whether the Will Ex. DW-2/A as set up by the respondent has not been prepared in conformity with the mandatory provisions of law and the same is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and, therefore, no reliance could be placed thereon; 2. Whether the findings, as recorded by both the Courts below are vitiated on account of misreading and mis-appreciating of the pleadings of the parties, as well as, oral and documentary evidence on record; 3. Whether the marginal witness in Will Ex. DW-2/A, being near relation of the respondent and so much so that DW-3 Shankar Dass, Kanungo uncle of the respondent and the fact that the respondent himself actively participated in the preparation of Will Ex. DW-2/A, therefore, this Will is not legal and valid." 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and gone through the record. No one has put in appearance for the respondent/defendant. They were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.07.2018. 6. Questions No. 1: Execution of the Will:- 6(i) It is settled law that the Will has to be executed in the manner required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925:- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. Questions No. 1: Execution of the Will:- 6(i) It is settled law that the Will has to be executed in the manner required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and has to be proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925:- "63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. -Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. (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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or 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." Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act:- "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.-If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied]." Relevant Statements:- 6(ii) Defendant as DW-1:- For proving the execution of Will as well as for proving its validity, the defendant/the propounder of the Will, stepped into the witness box as DW-1. He has stated that; The testator was alone in his old age; He was issue-less; His wife had predeceased him; His brothers had also died; Jatho Devi/plaintiff had not visited Latu for the last 14-15 years or more; Plaintiff's General Power of Attorney Smt. Basanti Devi was also married and living in Solan; Both of them never visited village Briela where testator lived and where suit property is situated; It was the defendant, resident of same village, who took care of the testator for around 4-5 years preceding his death; It was the defendant, who had performed last rites of Latu/testator; Neither plaintiff nor her General Power of Attorney had visited village Briela even after the death of the testator; There was no relation of the testator who cared for him; It is because of defendant's care and looking after the testator that the later executed the Will in question in favour of the defendant. He further stated that for such execution of the Will, the testator took the defendant to the Tehsil office on 29.02.1988; Testator/Latu, was not suffering from any mental or physical incapability at the time of execution of the Will; There was no pressure on him either of the defendant or of anyone else for executing the Will in question; Will was executed by him of his own free volition; The testator had himself requested the scribe for writing the Will; Where after, the scribe had read over the Will to the testator, who after accepting the contents thereof put his thumb impression on it; S/Sh. Jagat Ram and Madan Singh, who were present on that day in Tehsil office in connection with their own work, stood as attesting witnesses to the Will; The attesting witnesses were present at the time of execution of the Will and had put their signatures as such on the Will after the thumb impression were put on it by the testator; Neither plaintiff nor her General Power of Attorney took care of late Sh. Latu and that it was he, who looked after the testator and it is because of such looking after and also taking care of him that the testator had genuinely bequeathed the suit property in his favour by executing the Will in question. DW-1 has further stated that after the Will was executed by late Sh. Latu in presence of scribe and after the attesting witnesses put their signatures on it, the Will was taken for registration before the Sub Registrar/Tehsildar and was registered on the same day. Latu was in sound disposition of mind. 6(iii). On going through the record, one cannot help but notice that the plaintiff even in the plaint has no where mentioned that either she or her attorney ever looked after Latu. No suggestion was given to DW-1, during his cross-examination that Will was the result of undue influence exercised by the defendant over Latu. 6(iv) DW-2 (Madan Singh): For proving the due and valid execution of the Will, the defendant has also examined one of the attesting witnesses as per the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sh. Madan Singh (DW-2), stated that he was in the Tehsildar office in connection with his own work regarding registry of his land. 6(iv) DW-2 (Madan Singh): For proving the due and valid execution of the Will, the defendant has also examined one of the attesting witnesses as per the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Sh. Madan Singh (DW-2), stated that he was in the Tehsildar office in connection with his own work regarding registry of his land. In fact, in cross-examination, he has given the complete details of the land, which he got registered in his favour on that very day. He stated that he knew Latu as well as defendant Surat Singh. He further proved the valid execution of the Will by saying that; The Will was scribed by Munshi, thereafter, it was read over to Latu, who admitted it to be correctly drafted as per his desire and then put his thumb impression on it; Thereafter, he and Jagat Ram appended their signatures on the Will as attesting witnesses; Will was thereafter taken by them before the Sub Registrar/Tehsildar for its registration, where Shankar Dass had identified the testator. This witness has identified his as well as Jagat Ram's signatures and thumb impression of Latu on the Will. He has also testified that at the time of execution of the Will, Latu was in perfect mental and physical condition. Plaintiff could not extract anything in her favour from the statement of DW-2. 6(v) DW-3 (Shankar Dass):- Defendant has also produced in the witness box, Shankar Dass, the identifier of the testator at the time of registration of Will. Shankar Dass as DW-3, has stated that in 1988, he was working as Office Kanugoo in Rajgarh and he knew Latu, as he belonged to adjoining village; Latu had come in 1988 in Tehsil office for execution and registration of the Will. He admitted having identified Latu before the Registrar at the time of registration of the Will. He further says that on the day of execution and registration of the Will, Latu was in good physical condition and suffered from no infirmity either of body or of mind. 6(vi). Considering the above evidence, there is no escape from concluding that execution and registration of the Will has been duly proved in accordance with law by the propounder of the Will. Question is answered accordingly. Questions No. 2 & 3: 7. 6(vi). Considering the above evidence, there is no escape from concluding that execution and registration of the Will has been duly proved in accordance with law by the propounder of the Will. Question is answered accordingly. Questions No. 2 & 3: 7. Suspicious Circumstances & Appreciation of Evidence:- 7(i) It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances, in as much as, beneficiary and his acquaintances have played active part in execution and registration of the Will. This he contended, in itself is suspicious circumstance. The contention merits rejection, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7(ii) Mere participation by the beneficiary or his relation in execution of the Will, cannot be construed to be a suspicious circumstance. I have gone through the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses as well as statements of defendant's witnesses. The statements of defendant's witnesses are coherent and natural, without any ambiguity or confusion. It is not the case of the plaintiff that either the attesting witness or the identifier or the Registering Authority had any axe to grind against the plaintiff. The will has been proved in accordance with law and the witnesses have been examined. No doubt, the beneficiary was present at the time of execution of the Will, but that cannot be a ground to doubt the valid execution of the Will or to contend that such participation has to be treated as a suspicious circumstance. The beneficiary has not even been put any suggestion by the plaintiff about any undue pressure, influence having been put by him on the testator for executing the Will. It is also not disputed by the plaintiff that the testator was neither incapacitated nor infirmed either in body or in mind because of which, he could not have executed the Will of his own free volition. The attesting witnesses as well as identifier have, off course admitted that they knew the testator. The argument of the plaintiff that the testator has not chosen persons from his own village to be attesting witnesses, will be a suspicious circumstance, cannot be accepted. The argument is illogical. Testator would definitely choose a person upon whom he could trust and place confidence. 7(iii) Another argument has been raised by the appellant that the beneficiary/defendant has stated that he was not related to Sh. Madan Singh/attesting witness, whereas, Sh. The argument is illogical. Testator would definitely choose a person upon whom he could trust and place confidence. 7(iii) Another argument has been raised by the appellant that the beneficiary/defendant has stated that he was not related to Sh. Madan Singh/attesting witness, whereas, Sh. Madan Singh (DW-2), has stated that beneficiary was in his near relation. This, in itself, will not make execution of the Will suspicious. Learned counsel also tried to point out a contradiction in the statement of a witness regarding the mode of arrival of testator and beneficiary, in Tehsil office. It is to be noted that the statements were recorded about 14 years after the execution of Will. Resultantly, some minor discrepancies can occur, which are not of the nature to discredit the valid execution of Will and to put it under cloud of suspicious circumstances. 7(iv) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that mere active participation of the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will or his relation/acquaintances, can not lead to an inference that Will was not genuine. It is profitable to reproduce relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2004) 2 SCC 321 , titled as Uma Devi Nambiar and Others vs. T.C. Sidhan (dead),: "16. A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in PPK Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. As held in PPK Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstance, the Court has to give effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations (See Puspavati v. Chandraja Kadamba.) In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, it was observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly" Hon'ble Apex Court in (2005) 2 SCC 784 , titled as Sridevi and Others vs. Jayaraja Shetty and Others, held as under:- "11. It is well settled proposition of law that mode of proving the will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The onus to prove the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, need be sufficient to discharge the onus. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would again be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will can be accepted as genuine. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. In case the person contesting the will alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on him to prove the same. As to what are suspicious circumstances have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. (For this see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and the subsequent judgments Ramachandra Rambux v. Champabai, Surendra Pal v. Dr. As to what are suspicious circumstances have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. (For this see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and the subsequent judgments Ramachandra Rambux v. Champabai, Surendra Pal v. Dr. Saraswati Arora, Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and Meenakshiammal v. Chandrasekaran)." In (2005) 8 SCC 67, titled as Pentakota Satyanarayana and Others vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Others, Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:- "24. In the instant case, the propounders were called upon 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 on his own freewill. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts indicated above. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that propounders themselves took a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confer on them substantial benefits. In the instant case, the propounders who were required to remove the said suspicion have let in clear and satisfactory evidence. In the instant case, there was unequivocal admission of the Will in the written statement filed by P. Srirammurthy. In his written statement, he has specifically averred that he had executed the Will and also described the appellants as his sons and Alla Kantamma as his wife as the admission was found in the pleadings. The case of the appellants cannot be thrown out. As already noticed, the first defendant has specifically pleaded that he had executed a Will in the year 1980 and such admissions cannot be easily brushed aside. However, the testator could not be examined as he was not alive at the time of trial. All the witnesses deposed that they had signed as identifying witnesses and that the testator was in sound disposition of mind. Thus, in our opinion, the appellants have discharged their burden and established that the Will in question was executed by Srirammurthy and Ex. B9 was his last will. All the witnesses deposed that they had signed as identifying witnesses and that the testator was in sound disposition of mind. Thus, in our opinion, the appellants have discharged their burden and established that the Will in question was executed by Srirammurthy and Ex. B9 was his last will. It is true that registration of the Will does not dispense with the need of proving, execution and attestation of a document which is required by law to be proved in the manner as provided in Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The Registrar has made the following particulars on Ex. B9 which was admitted to registration, namely, the date, hour and place of presentation of document for registration, the signature of the person admitting the execution of the Will and the signature of the identifying witnesses. The document also contains the signatures of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. Such particulars are required to be endorsed by the Registrar along with his signature and date of document. A presumption by a reference to Section 114 of the Evidence Act shall arise to the effect that particulars contained in the endorsement of registration were regularly and duly performed and are correctly recorded. In our opinion, the burden of proof to prove the Will has been duly and satisfactorily discharged by the appellants. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the Will in the manner contemplated by law. In such circumstances, the onus shift to the contestant opposing the Will to bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus shift back on the propounder to satisfy the court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the Will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same." "25. It is settled by a catena of decisions that any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. Even in a case where active participation and execution of the Will by the propounders/beneficiaries was there, it has been held that that by itself is not sufficient to create any doubt either about the testamentary capacity or the genuineness of the Will. It has been held that the mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution would not prove that the beneficiary had taken prominent part in the execution of the Will. It has been held that the mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution would not prove that the beneficiary had taken prominent part in the execution of the Will. This is the view taken by this Court in Sridevi & Ors vs. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors, (2005) 2 SCC 784 . In the said case, it has been held that the onus to prove the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will proof of testamentary capacity and the proof of signature of the testator as required by law not be sufficient to discharge the onus. In case, the person attesting the Will alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on him to prove the same and that as to what suspicious circumstances which have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case." The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. The findings recorded by learned Courts below are based on correct appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record. Valid execution of Will has been proved, without any suspicious circumstance surrounding it. Mutation No. 195: Opportunity of Hearing: 7(v) Before parting, it may be noticed that Mutation No. 195, initially attested in favour of Jatho Devi/plaintiff on 29.09.1989 by ignoring the registered Will, was challenged by the defendant before the Collector. The Collector had remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. On remand, Assistant Collector on 22.12.2000 records the fact that Jatho Devi despite service effected upon her, did not present herself before the Court. Where after, she was given written instructions to remain present in the Court. She did not abide by that also. A proclamation was also issued for informing her about the proceedings. Having failed to remain present, ex parte, proceedings were initiated against Jatho Devi. Consequently, on the basis of registered Will dated 22.02.1988, executed by Latu in favour of the defendant, the entries in respect of the suit land were recorded in ownership and possession of the defendant. A proclamation was also issued for informing her about the proceedings. Having failed to remain present, ex parte, proceedings were initiated against Jatho Devi. Consequently, on the basis of registered Will dated 22.02.1988, executed by Latu in favour of the defendant, the entries in respect of the suit land were recorded in ownership and possession of the defendant. It has otherwise come on record that it is the defendant who is actually in possession of the suit property after the death of Latu And subsequent to review of Mutation No. 195, carried out on 22.12.2000, has become owner thereof on the basis of registered Will in question. In view of the above discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed as such. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.