JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. Saurabh Pradhan, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei District in Probate Case No. 6/2016. 3. The appellants’ case is that the deceased, Mr. Hrengkhuaia was the father of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and he had moved to stay with the appellant at Tawipui ‘S’ during the year 2013, wherein while he was staying with the appellant, he had executed the Will dated 05.10.2014 and thereafter died on 02.12.2014. On the death of Mr. Hrengkhuaia, the appellant/petitioner had approached the Senior Civil Judge, Lunglei for probate of the Will dated 05.10.2014 said to be executed by their deceased father. In the Will Mr. Hrengkuaia bequeathed all his property to the person who looked after him and was with him at the time of his death (dawmhlumtu). 4. The respondents filed their counter claim, claiming that the alleged Will was fake and claimed that the deceased was having two LSCs at Lawngtlai, and he had executed a Will dated 20.04.2014 wherein one LSC was bequeathed to respondent No.1 who had built her house within the LSC and the other LSC was bequeathed to respondent No.2 and her daughter respondent No.3 who was living with the deceased Hrengkhuaia and looked after him. That the deceased Hrengkhuaia had only gone to visit the appellant at Tawipui ‘S’ in the month of November 2014, where he unfortunately passed away and was buried at Tawipui’S’ at the insistence of the appellant, as a guest (mikhual) and not as a residence of Tawipui ‘S’. He did not move to Tawipui ‘S’ to live with the appellant as claimed by her. That it was Respondent No.3, the granddaughter of Mr. Hrengkhuaia, who lived with him and looked after him. 5. From the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues- i. whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 05.10.2014 is forged and faked or fit for grant of probate? ii. Whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 20.04.2014 is the last one or not? iii. 5. From the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues- i. whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 05.10.2014 is forged and faked or fit for grant of probate? ii. Whether the Will alleged to be executed by Hrengkhuaia on 20.04.2014 is the last one or not? iii. Supposed the said Will of 05.10.2014 is the last Will whether Ms. Lalthlangliani respondent No.3 is ‘Dawmhlumtu’ of the testator Pu Hrengkhuaia ? 6. Both the parties then adduced their evidence. The appellant examined as many as 6 witnesses and the respondent examined as many as 7 witnesses. After considering the evidence adduced and on hearing both the parties, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order dated 26.02.2018, wherein the learned Senior Civil Judge, had dismissed the application for probate of the Will dated 05.10.2014 holding that there was discrepancies and contradictions in the statement of the attesting witnesses and that the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and that the evidence adduced are not corroborated well enough which in turn creates a lot of doubt in the mind of the Court. The learned trial court also held that the alleged Will dated 20.04.2014 cannot be probated since the original Will was not produced. Being highly aggrieved by the dismissal of the Will dated 05.10.2014, the appellant has approached this Court by way of a regular first appeal. 7. Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge had erred in dismissing the application for probate of the Will on the grounds that the learned Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence adduced by the attesting plaintiff witnesses Nos. 1, 4, 5 and that the witnesses have all stated that they were present at the time when the deceased Hrengkhuaia had made his Will and they saw each other put their signatures on the Will as witnesses. That the deceased Hrengkhuaia did not suffer from any mental illness and the Will was not done under coercion. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Lower Court had wrongly observed that there was overwriting and correction in the statement of PW6, wherein she had stated that witness No. 4, Sh. K. Rodingliana signed first in the Will was corrected, ‘Hmasa’ and corrected by ‘Hnuhnung’. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Lower Court had wrongly observed that there was overwriting and correction in the statement of PW6, wherein she had stated that witness No. 4, Sh. K. Rodingliana signed first in the Will was corrected, ‘Hmasa’ and corrected by ‘Hnuhnung’. The learned counsel submits that this correction was done by the Court while recording the deposition of PW6 and this cannot be a ground to doubt that the Will was executed by the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia. He further submits that all the witnesses on the Will dated 05.10.2014 have been examined and they have stated that they were present at the time of making the Will, thus, it does not really matter as to who was stated to have put their signature first or later. The contents of the Will is that the person who was looking after the deceased till his death is the person who is to inherit the property left behind by him and that the appellant is a person who was looking after the deceased, Mr. Hrengkhuaia till his death, and therefore his legal heir. 9. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that there were no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Order of the learned Senior Civil Judge. The Will which was exhibited and produced for probate was full of discrepancies and contradiction, as observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. It can be clearly seen that in the cross examination of PW6, she had stated that Mr. Rodingliana signed on the Will as a witnesses first and thereafter, the other person signed on the Will. While Mr. Rodingliana in his deposition mentioned that he was the last person to put his signature on the Will. This contradiction cannot be ignored since this is for the probate of the Will. He also points out that PW6 had mentioned that herself and her husband Mr. Khuaihrema and the 3 witnesses namely, T. Zachhunga, T. Biakzuala and K. Rodingliana were the only persons present at the time when the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia had executed the Will whereas but PW5 mentioned that the children of the petitioner were also present at the time of the execution of the Will. 10. Mr. Khuaihrema and the 3 witnesses namely, T. Zachhunga, T. Biakzuala and K. Rodingliana were the only persons present at the time when the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia had executed the Will whereas but PW5 mentioned that the children of the petitioner were also present at the time of the execution of the Will. 10. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Will does not mention the name of any beneficiary nor the property and even if the Will was probated, the person who had looked after the deceased till his death is not the appellant but the respondent No. 3, who is the granddaughter of the deceased, Mr. Hrengkhuaia. 11. Having heard the submissions made by both the parties, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned trial court had erred in not appreciating the evidence adduced by the appellant and in not probating the Will dated 05.10.2014 claimed to be executed by the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia. 12. On perusal of the documents on record and the evidence adduced before the trial court, it is seen that the witnesses PW1 T. Zachhunga, PW4 K. Rodingliana and PW5 T. Biakzuala are the attesting witness on alleged Will dated 05.1.2014. PW1 stated that he wrote the contents of the Will as dictated by the deceased Hrengkhuaia and thereafter the deceased Hrengkhuaia put his thumb impression after which he had signed on the Will, he also saw the other two attesting witnesses put their signatures. PW4 & PW5 also stated that they witnesses Pu Hrengkhuaia put his thumb impression on the Will and he was of sound mind. The other PWs namely, PW2 Lalramchuani and PW3 C. Vanlalvena have deposed that the deceased Hrengkhuaia died in the residence of the appellant and was buried at Tawipui ‘S’ graveyard and that the appellant and her husband looked after him till his last breath. PW6 is the appellant who deposed that the deceased Hrengkhuaia was her father and he resided with them since 2013 and passed away in their house at Tawipui ‘S’ on 2.12.2014. That since they had looked after him till his death she believed that the Will was made in her favour. 13. PW6 is the appellant who deposed that the deceased Hrengkhuaia was her father and he resided with them since 2013 and passed away in their house at Tawipui ‘S’ on 2.12.2014. That since they had looked after him till his death she believed that the Will was made in her favour. 13. The observation made by the learned trial court in the evidence adduced by the attesting witnesses was that there was discrepancy and contradiction as to the sequence in which of the attesting witnesses had put their signature. The learned trial court observed that in the cross examination of PW6, she had stated that Mr. Rodingliana signed on the Will as a witnesses first and thereafter, the other person signed on the Will, then she stated that Mr. Rodingliana was the last person to put his signature on the Will. It was also observed that there was contradiction in the persons present while the Will was executed. PW6 had mentioned that herself and her husband Mr. Khuaihrema and the 3 witnesses namely, T. Zachhunga, T. Biakzuala and K. Rodingliana were the only persons present at the time when the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia had executed the Will whereas, PW5 mentioned that the children of the petitioner were also present at the time of the execution of the Will. It is also seen that PW1 also stated that the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia was welcomed into BCM in 2014 while PW2 in her cross examination mentioned that he was welcomed in 2013. 14. The defendant/ respondents have on the other hand had produced 7 nos. of defence witnesses. Dw1 Sangrengmawii and DW2 Thanghliri are the daughters of the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia and the sisters of the appellant while DW3 Lalthangliani is the daughter of DW2. They have deposed that they had been looking after their father after the death of their mother on 24.02.1981 till DW1 and DW2 got married and moved out, while DW3 continued to look after and stay with her grandfather the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia. They denied that their father had migrated to Tawipui ‘S’ to live with the appellant but stated that he use to often go to Lunglei for his medical treatment and visited the appellant on the way. Hrengkhuaia. They denied that their father had migrated to Tawipui ‘S’ to live with the appellant but stated that he use to often go to Lunglei for his medical treatment and visited the appellant on the way. That he had gone to Lunglei for his medical checkup in the month of November 2014 and as practiced earlier, he visited the appellant but had unfortunately and unexpectedly died on 02.12.2014 during his visit. They denied that he had executed a Will on 05.10.2014, stating that he had executed a Will on 20.04.2014 wherein, the LS No. 52/11 converted to LSC No. 151/14 was bequeathed to respondent No.1 who had built her house within the LSC and the other property LS No. 51/11 converted to LSC No. 152/2014 was bequeathed to respondent No.2 and her daughter respondent No.3 who was living with the deceased Hrengkhuaia and looked after him. The other DWs mainly stated that the deceased Hrengkhuaia did not migrate to Tawpui’S’ and that he was looked after by his granddaughter/ respondent No 3. 15. While considering the discrepancies noted by the learned trial court, it is also seen that no date is mentioned as to when the deceased went to Tawipui’S’, the appellants’ stating that it was in 2013 while the respondents claim that it was in the month of November 2014. No evidence is adduced by the appellant as to the reason why the deceased Hrengkhuaia had moved to stay with her at Tawipui ’S’. Further while executing a Will the testator should be specific and clear with respect to the intentions of the testator. On perusal of the contents of the Will said to be executed by the deceased Mr. Hrengkhuaia it is seen that the Will does not mention the properties that belonged to him which he wished to bequeath nor has he named any beneficiary. The nature and contents of the Will is vague and cannot be said to be absolute, resulting in problems in execution of the Will. Further evidence will be required to prove who was the person who was looking after the testator before his death and who was the person who was by the side of the testator at the time of his death. Further evidence will be required to prove who was the person who was looking after the testator before his death and who was the person who was by the side of the testator at the time of his death. From the deposition of both the parties this Court is of the considered view that there are suspicious circumstances under which the Will was executed as correctly observed by the learned trial court. 16. For testing the genuineness of the Will the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 396 held that: "20. It has been said almost too frequently to require repetition that a will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The' executant of the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order or judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. it would be also open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities; of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party.” 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Court had rightly dismissed the application for probate of the Will and thus I find no grounds to interfere with the Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2018 in Probate Case No.6/2016. 18. RFA No. 10 of 2018 accordingly stands dismissed and disposed.