ORDER : By way of this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants had challenged the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2011, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anni, District Kullu (HP) in Civil Suit No. 40-1 of 2003, titled as Prittam Singh Vs. Tabe Ram & Ors., vide which, suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction filed by the plaintiff, was decreed by the learned Trial Court, as also the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2014, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kinnaur, Civil & Sessions Division, Rampur, in Civil Appeal No. 0100008/2011, titled as Tabe Ram & Another Vs. Prittam Singh & Ors., vide which, learned Appellate Court while upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellants. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that Sh. Prittam Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction against the appellants (name of appellant No.2 Smt. Blasso Devi has been ordered to be deleted on account of her death), on the pleadings that Sh. Ram Sahay was owner of the property in Sub Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, HP. He had two wives namely Smt. Blasso Devi and Smt. Aalmu Devi. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 i.e present appellant No.1 Sh. Tabe Ram were his two sons and proforma defendants No.4 to 7 were his daughters. In the year 1991, defendant No.1, manipulated Sh. Ram Sahay and got one Will executed in his favour from Sh. Ram Sahay, in terms whereof, he got some land bequeathed in his favour, which was the prime land. Realizing the fraud played by defendant No.1, Sh. Ram Sahay got his entire holding partitioned between the plaintiff and Sh. Ram Sahay in the presence of respectable persons of the area on 30.05.1993. In terms of the said partition, Sh. Ram Sahay executed a Will on 31.5.1993, which was duly registered and vide this Will, he revoked his earlier Will. In terms of the said Will, plaintiff and defendant No.1, who were earlier living jointly, were separated by their father. The plaintiff and his father lived jointly, whereas defendant No.2 and mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1, lived with the plaintiff till the year 2000. In terms of the said Will, plaintiff and defendant No.1, who were earlier living jointly, were separated by their father. The plaintiff and his father lived jointly, whereas defendant No.2 and mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1, lived with the plaintiff till the year 2000. The plaintiff, who was in service, maintained his father as well as his mother and step mother to the best of his ability. After the partition, plaintiff and defendant No.1 cultivated upon their own shares separately. Sh. Ram Sahay for the reasons best known to him, executed another Will on 17.12.1996, vide which he made certain modifications bequeathing land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 30/91, Khasra No.229 measuring 0.14 Bighas situated in Patwar Circle Gopalpur, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in favour of defendant No.1 and land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.18/67, Khasra No.230, measuring 7.6 Biswas and Khasra No.227, 231, one half share measuring 1-11-12 Bighas total 1-19 Bighas situated in Patwar Circle Gopalpur, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., in favour of the plaintiff. As per this Will, remaining landed property including the house was bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 and further Sh. Ram Sahay revoked earlier Will dated 31.5.1993. According to the plaintiff Sh. Ram Sahay was an old man, yet he was maintaining good health till the year 2000, upto when he stayed with the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.1, instigated Sh. Ram Sahay as well as both his wives to live with him. Owing to such instigation, Sh. Ram Sahay stayed with defendant No.1, till his death. According to the plaintiff, Sh. Ram Sahay’s health was fading on account of advance age and he was also getting mentally weak. His memory was feeble and he also lost his eye sight. He was not in a position to distinguish between good and bad. In the month of April 2003, Sh. Ram Sahay got bed ridden and he continued to be so till his death i.e. 25.9.2003. The plaintiff was informed about his illness only in the month of September, 2003. He immediately rushed from his place of posting to attend Sh. Ram Sahay. However, unfortunately Sh. Ram Sahay died on 25.9.2003. His last rites were jointly performed by plaintiff and defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 started asserting that late Sh. The plaintiff was informed about his illness only in the month of September, 2003. He immediately rushed from his place of posting to attend Sh. Ram Sahay. However, unfortunately Sh. Ram Sahay died on 25.9.2003. His last rites were jointly performed by plaintiff and defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 started asserting that late Sh. Ram Sahay had gifted land comprised in Khasra No. 2427/1, measuring one biswa which factually is Abadi Deh situated in Village Tihni, Phati Dingidhar, Kothi Sirigarh, Sub-Tehsil Anni, District H.P., in favour of the minor sons of defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, the physical possession of this land was with the plaintiff and it came to his knowledge that defendants No.1 and 2 had manipulated the execution of a Will by Sh. Ram Sahay allegedly on 17.04.2003, qua land comprised in Khasra No.5305/2235 measuring 6 bighas 13 biswas and Khasra No.2284, one half share measuring 18 biswas situated in Phati Dingidhar, as also the land situated in Patwar Circle Gopalpur, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., comprised in Khasra No.230, 229, 227, 231 in favour of defendant No.1. According to the plaintiff, this Will dated 17.04.2003, was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and it was a false Will besides being unnatural and, thus, was not a genuine Will, as it was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. As per the plaintiff, Sh. Ram Sahay on the alleged date of the execution of this Will was in his advanced age, had feeble memory and weak eye sight and was not in a position to execute any Will. Accordingly, a declaration was sought that the Will be declared as void and further Will dated 17.12.1996, executed by Sh. Ram Sahay be held to be the last Will of Sh. Ram Sahay. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1, who in his written statement took the stand that though Sh. Ram Sahay had executed Wills in the year 1991, 1993 and 1996 also, but the same stood revoked vide Will dated 17.04.2003. According to the defendant, Sh. Ram Sahay was maltreated by the wife of plaintiff and the Will was executed in the year 1996, on account of undue influence and coercion methods, which were used against Sh. Ram Sahay by the plaintiff. Further, as per defendant No.1, he came to the rescue of Sh. Ram Sahay and gave him moral and financial support. Sh. Ram Sahay was maltreated by the wife of plaintiff and the Will was executed in the year 1996, on account of undue influence and coercion methods, which were used against Sh. Ram Sahay by the plaintiff. Further, as per defendant No.1, he came to the rescue of Sh. Ram Sahay and gave him moral and financial support. Sh. Ram Sahay lived with defendant No.1, since 1999 up to his death and it was in lieu of the service so rendered by him to his father that he executed Will dated 17.4.2003, out of love and affection in favour of the defendant No.1. According to the said defendant, the Will was duly executed and the same was binding upon all the parties as the same was executed by the testator in his full sense and was also duly registered in the presence of the attesting witnesses before the Competent Officer. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- Issue No.1: Whether the Will dated 17.12.1996 is valid Will having been executed by Ram Sahay and binding on parties, as alleged? OPP. Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. Issue No.3: Whether the Testator has executed valid Will dated 17.04.2003, as alleged? OPD. Issue No.4: Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act, conduct and deeds from filing the present suit? OPD. Issue No.5: Relief. 5. On the basis of the evidence which was led in support of their respective contention by the contesting parties, the issues were answered as under:- Issue No.1 : Yes. Issue No.2 : Yes. Issue No.3 : No. Issue No.4 : No. Issue No.5 : Suit of the plaintiff is decreed, vide operative part of the judgment. 6. The suit was thus decreed by the learned Trial Court by holding that Will dated 17.12.1996, was the last valid Will of late Sh. Ram Sahay and the same was binding upon the parties, whereas Will dated 17.04.2003, was not a valid document. Learned Trial Court also passed a decree restraining the defendants from getting mutation entered and sanctioned in their favour qua the suit land. In appeal, the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court were upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 7. Learned Trial Court also passed a decree restraining the defendants from getting mutation entered and sanctioned in their favour qua the suit land. In appeal, the findings so returned by the learned Trial Court were upheld by the learned Appellate Court. 7. Feeling aggrieved, appellant/defendant No.1 has filed this appeal which was admitted by this Court on 07.07.2014, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on account of misappreciation of the pleadings and misreading of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the findings recorded by both Courts below are erroneous and, as such, the judgment and decree impugned in this appeal being perverse and vitiated is not legally sustainable?” 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below as well as the record of the case. 9. Learned Trial Court while decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff held that Will dated 17.12.1996, was duly proved by the plaintiff by examining PW-3 Anoop Ram, who was scribe of the Will and PW-2 Sh. Prem Nath, who was the Sub Registrar, Anni at the time when the Will dated 17.12.1996, was registered in his office. The Court held that PW-3 Sh. Anoop Ram, who was the scribe of Will dated 17.12.1996, mentioned in his affidavit that he knew Sh. Ram Sahay as well the parties and that Will dated 17.12.1996 was scribed by him as per the instructions of Sh. Ram Sahay. The Will after being scribed, was read over and contents thereof were admitted by Sh. Ram Sahay to be correct and thereafter he appended his signatures thereon in Urdu script in the presence of witnesses. This witness also deposed that two witnesses i.e. Sh. Pari Ram (Numberdar) and Sh. Joginder also appended their signatures on the Will in the presence of Sh. Ram Sahay. Sh. Pari Ram appended his signatures in Urdu script whereas Sh. Joginder appended his signatures in Hindi script, which were duly identified. Learned Trial Court also held that whereas attesting witness of Will dated 17.12.1996 i.e. Sh. Joginder was dead and another attesting witness of the Will Sh. Pari Ram had lost his memory, as such, they could not be examined. Pari Ram appended his signatures in Urdu script whereas Sh. Joginder appended his signatures in Hindi script, which were duly identified. Learned Trial Court also held that whereas attesting witness of Will dated 17.12.1996 i.e. Sh. Joginder was dead and another attesting witness of the Will Sh. Pari Ram had lost his memory, as such, they could not be examined. However, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to prove Will dated 17.12.1996, in terms of the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 10.12.2009. Plaintiff examined PW-4 Sh. Sanget Ram, who tendered his examination-in-chief affidavit in which he stated that he knew Sh. Pari Ram Negi, who was the Numberdar of Village Tharog and he identified the signatures of Sh. Pari Ram, as Pari Ram had appended his signatures many times before this witness, who was a Deed Writer. This witness also stated that he recognized the signatures of Sh. Pari Ram on Will Ext. PW-3/A in Urdu script. Learned Trial Court held that in his cross-examination, his credibility could not be impeached by the defendants and said witness also deposed that he knew Urdu script. On these basis, learned Trial Court held that the execution of Will dated 17.12.1996, stood duly proved by the plaintiff. 10. While deciding issue No.3, learned Trial Court held that execution of Will dated 17.04.2003 could not be proved by the defendants. It held that in order to prove this issue, defendants examined four witnesses. Defendant No.1, entered into the witness box as DW-1 and he made same depositions in the Court which were made in the written statement. Learned Court, held that defendant No.1 Sh. Tabe Ram was neither the testator nor the scribe of the Will nor its attesting witness, therefore, his deposition would not in any manner go to prove the execution of the Will in question. It further held that DW-2 Sh. Lagan Dass, who had appended his signatures on the Will in question i.e. Ext. DW-4/A as the identifier of the testator, deposed in the witness box that he knew late Sh. Ram Sahay and that Will dated 17.04.2003, was bearing his signatures. He further deposed that he was not aware as to who had scribed the Will. Lagan Dass, who had appended his signatures on the Will in question i.e. Ext. DW-4/A as the identifier of the testator, deposed in the witness box that he knew late Sh. Ram Sahay and that Will dated 17.04.2003, was bearing his signatures. He further deposed that he was not aware as to who had scribed the Will. He stated that he had appended his signatures upon the Will in the Tehsil office, when he went to the Clerk, who had affixed a stamp on the Will, whereafter he had appended his signatures on the same. Learned Trial Court on the strength of the statement of this witness, held that it was evident from the deposition of this witness that he had not appended his signatures upon the same, either in front of the scribe or the testator of the Will. Learned Trial Court also held that PW-3 Sh. Parma Nand deposed in the Court that he had scribed Will dated 17.04.2003, as per the directions of Sh. Tabe Ram. Learned Court held that it appeared from the statement of this witness that he had appended his signatures before a Clerk in Tehsil office, as he had nowhere stated that he appended his signatures in the presence of the testator of Will Sh. Ram Sahay or that Sh. Ram Sahay also appended his signatures on the Will in the presence of this witness or acknowledged his signatures on the Will as a witness. Learned Court further held that if the statement of this witness was read with that of PW-3 Ram Sahay, the same raised doubts as to whether Sh. Ram Sahay was actually aware of the contents of the Will or not and the only inference which could be drawn was that the contents of the Will were not known to the testator. Active role was played by Tabe Ram, in getting the Will scribed from PW-3 Sh. Anoop Ram which shrouded the Will with suspicion. Learned Court also observed that the attesting witness to the Will namely Sh. Parma Nand was stated to be dead and the only other witness namely Sh. Lagan Dass was not able to prove the proper execution of the Will in question. All this raised suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the Will in question as to whether the same was rightly prepared or not. Parma Nand was stated to be dead and the only other witness namely Sh. Lagan Dass was not able to prove the proper execution of the Will in question. All this raised suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the Will in question as to whether the same was rightly prepared or not. Learned Trial Court also held that in his statement, DW-4 Sh. Surender Thakur, Naib Tehsildar, stated that as per record Sh. Ram Sahay came to him for registration of Will and identified Sh. Lagan Dass and attesting witness Sh. Parma Nand accompanied Sh. Ram Sahay. Before registering the Will, he read over the contents thereof to Sh. Ram Sahay, who was in good mental condition and said that Will be registered. This also, according to the learned Trial Court could not in any manner fill the gaps in proving the attestation of the Will in issue in terms of the provisions of the Succession Act. On these basis, learned Trial Court decreed the suit. 11. In appeal learned Appellate Court up held these findings. Learned Appellate Court held that Will dated 17.04.2003, should have been proved by defendants to have been executed by the testator in sound state of mind after fully knowing and understanding the contents of the documents. It held that Will dated 17.04.2003 Ext. DW-4/A was said to have been executed by late Sh. Ram Sahay in favour of contesting defendants and perusal of the same demonstrated that Will was scribed by Sh. Anoop Ram PW-3 and attested by only one witness Sh. Parma Nand. DW-2 Sh. Lagan Dass signed the Will only as an identifier of the executant and not as an attesting witness. Learned Appellate Court thus held that the Will in issue was not attested by at least two witnesses, which demonstrated that the Will had not been attested in accordance with law and in the absence of due attestation thereof, it could not be said the execution of the Will stood proved on record. It further held that material on record suggested that this Will was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. While referring to the statement of PW-3 Sh. Anoop Ram, the scribe of the document, it observed that this witness had stated that Sh. Tabe Ram DW-1 came to him on 17.04.2003, and got the Will scribed by stating that Sh. Ram Sahay, the actual executant would come later on. While referring to the statement of PW-3 Sh. Anoop Ram, the scribe of the document, it observed that this witness had stated that Sh. Tabe Ram DW-1 came to him on 17.04.2003, and got the Will scribed by stating that Sh. Ram Sahay, the actual executant would come later on. This witness further stated that he scribed the Will and Sh. Ram Sahay came thereafter. He also stated that he did not read over the Will to the executant. On these basis, learned Appellate Court concluded that the Will was not scribed on the instructions of late Sh. Ram Sahay but was written on the instructions of Sh. Tabe Ram and the Will in issue was never read over to the executant. Learned Appellate Court also held that the statement of DW-2 Sh. Lagan Dass corroborated the version of Sh. Anoop Ram to some extent. Learned Appellate Court took note of the fact that DW-2 had deposed that he signed the Will as an identifier and was not aware as to where the same was written and by whom and when he went to sign the Will, Sh. Ram Sahay was not present, which proved that the Will in issue was not got scribed at the instance of Sh. Ram Sahay nor the same was attested to by at least two witnesses, which was an essential requirement of law. On these basis, it held that the findings returned by learned Trial Court that due execution of Will dated 17.04.2003, was not proved on record, did not call for any interference. Learned Appellate Court also held that it was only when the execution of a Will was proved by the propounder that the onus shifts to the persons to prove that its execution was shrouded by suspicious circumstances, but in the present case, the propounder of the Will had failed to discharge the initial onus. With regard to Will dated 17.12.1996, learned Appellate Court affirmed the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the same stood proved to be the last duly executed Will by late Sh. Ram Sahay, as its execution stood proved by scribe Sh. Anoop Ram and the attesting witnesses of the said Will. 12. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit was for declaration that Will, allegedly executed on 17.04.2003 by late Sh. Ram Sahay, as its execution stood proved by scribe Sh. Anoop Ram and the attesting witnesses of the said Will. 12. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the prayer of the plaintiff in the suit was for declaration that Will, allegedly executed on 17.04.2003 by late Sh. Ram Sahay be declared to be void and Will executed by late Sh. Ram Sahay, dated 17.12.1996 be held to be a validly executed Will by him qua the property mentioned therein. 13. Now incidently, a perusal of the written statement demonstrates that execution of Will dated 17.12.1996 by Sh. Ram Sahay was not disputed by the contesting defendants, who in the written statement took the defence that Will dated 17.12.1996 was later on revoked on account of the reasons mentioned therein and Sh. Ram Sahay executed another Will dated 17.04.2003 out of love and affection for the defendant No.1 and also to defeat the wrong deeds of the plaintiffs. Now, it is well settled principle of law that admitted facts need not be proved. Yet, in this case, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court did frame an issue with regard to the legality of Will dated 17.12.1996 as to whether the same was a validly executed Will. There are concurrent findings to the effect that the same is a validly executed Will. Its execution has been proved on record by the statement of its scribe Sh. Anoop Ram PW-3 as well as the statement of Sh. Sangat Ram PW-4, who was examined by the plaintiffs after securing permission to prove the Will by filing an application under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, as one of the attesting witness of Will dated 17.12.1996 Sh. Joginder Singh was stated to be dead and the other attesting witness Sh. Pari Ram was stated to have lost his memory. Now, Sh. Sangat Ram deposed in the Court that he knew Pari Ram, who was the Nambardar of Village Tharog and he recognized his signatures, as Pari Ram had appended his signature before this witness on several occasions. Incidently, Sh. Sangat Ram was a deed writer in Tehsil Anni, who deposed that Sh. Pari Ram used to visit the Tehsil office with regard to land revenue matters and in the course of preparation of documents, he had signed many of times in front of him. Incidently, Sh. Sangat Ram was a deed writer in Tehsil Anni, who deposed that Sh. Pari Ram used to visit the Tehsil office with regard to land revenue matters and in the course of preparation of documents, he had signed many of times in front of him. Thus, neither the execution of Will dated 17.12.1996 has been much disputed by the contesting defendants nor it can be said that its execution was not duly proved by the plaintiffs before the learned Courts below. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that there is neither any misreading nor any misappreciation of documentary evidence or oral evidence on record in this regard by the learned Courts below. 14. Now, coming to Will dated 17.04.2003 Ext DW-4/A, a perusal of the evidence on record demonstrates that both the learned Courts below have rightly held that its execution was not duly proved by the contesting defendants. It is clearly borne out from the statement of the scribe of the Will PW-3 Sh. Anoop Ram that on 17.04.2003 Sh. Tabe Ram had come to him and stated that his father intended to execute a Will and he scribed a Will, as instructed by Sh. Tabe Ram. He also deposed in the Court that thereafter Sh. Ram Sahay appended his signatures on the Will and name of Sh. Parma Nand as a witness was also suggested by Sh. Tabe Ram. This witness also deposed that at the time of execution of Will dated 17.04.2003, Sh. Ram Sahay was of considerable old age and his health condition was not good and he was also looking extremely weak. The statement of this witness clearly demonstrates, as has also been held by both the learned Courts below, that Will Ext DW-4/A was not scribed at the instance of Sh. Ram Sahay, but the same was scribed at the instance of Sh. Tabe Ram that is the beneficiary of the Will. Not only this, it has not been spelt out in the statement of the scribe of the said Will that Sh. Ram Sahay appended his signatures on this Will after the same was read over and explained to him and he understood the contents thereof. This also clearly demonstrates that this Will indeed was shrouded with suspicious circumstances, because the propounder of the Will played an active role in the execution of the same. 15. Ram Sahay appended his signatures on this Will after the same was read over and explained to him and he understood the contents thereof. This also clearly demonstrates that this Will indeed was shrouded with suspicious circumstances, because the propounder of the Will played an active role in the execution of the same. 15. Besides this, it is also an admitted fact that the witnesses to the Will were not examined by the propounder of the Will and in the event of the witnesses not being available on account of death etc., no steps were taken by the propounder of the Will to prove this Will by way of any secondary evidence. The statement of the other witness DW-2 Sh. Lagan Dass also clearly demonstrates that he deposed that when he appended his signatures on Will dated 17.04.2003, it was already scribed and he was not knowing as to who had scribed the Will. He further stated that he appended his signatures on the Will in the Tehsil office in front of a Clerk. He also deposed that the Will was not read over in front of him and the witness to the Will were not present at the time when he scribed the Will. 16. Now, incidently, the signatures of this witness on the Will are not in his capacity as an attesting witness, but only in his capacity as an identifier of the executant. This witness also deposed in the Court that when he appended his signatures on the Will the executor of the Will, was not present. All this clearly demonstrates that the execution of Will Ext. DW4/A was not duly proved by the propounder of the Will before the learned Courts below. The findings to this effect returned by both the learned Courts below are clearly borne out from the record of the case and it cannot be said that these findings are perverse or are a result of misreading or misappreciation of the evidence on record. 17. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of one contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents, who argued that otherwise also as there was concurrent findings to the effect that Will dated 17.12.1996 was the last validly executed Will of Sh. 17. At this stage, it is pertinent to take note of one contention of learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents, who argued that otherwise also as there was concurrent findings to the effect that Will dated 17.12.1996 was the last validly executed Will of Sh. Ram Sahay and further Will dated 17.04.2003 was shrouded with suspicion, these being pure questions of fact answered by learned Courts below did not warrant any interference in the second appeal, as the same did not involve any substantial question of law. This Court is not making any observation on the said contentions for the simple reasons that after appreciation of the evidence on record vis-a-vis the findings returned by both the learned Courts below, this Court has otherwise held that there is no misreading or misappreciation of either the pleadings or the evidence on record. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. This appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.