JUDGMENT : Leeladhar and Manohar Lal, minors at the relevant time, instituted a Civil Suit on 01.11.2007, through their father Narayan Singh (Narayan Dass), claiming property of their paternal uncle Het Ram on the basis of a Will dated 23.11.2005, allegedly executed by him (Het Ram) in their favour. Mutation No.75, concerning the suit property, was entered and attested on 15.03.2007 in favour of Het Ram’s widow–Himti Devi (original defendant No.2) and his daughter Kaushlya Devi (original defendant No.1). Defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Court, hence, her name was struck off from the array of parties. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that execution of the Will set up by the plaintiffs was shrouded with suspicious circumstances. The execution of the Will did not appeal to the conscious of the learned Courts in view of the suspicious circumstances explained in their judgments. Hence, the plaintiffs’ civil suit was dismissed by both the learned Courts below. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs have come up by means of present Regular Second Appeal against the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court on 22.08.2017 and by the learned First Appellate Court on 17.12.2019. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The points emphasized by learned counsel for the appellants were that learned Courts below erred in law and fact in holding that the Will dated 23.11.2005 executed by Het Ram in favour of his nephews (appellants/plaintiffs) was shrouded with suspicion and doubts, more so, when it was a case of registered Will. Both the learned Courts did not appreciate the evidence, more particularly the statement made by Het Ram in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. where he had denied his relation with the defendants. Learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal and for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant defended the judgments and decrees in question and argued that neither the execution of Will by the testator in sound disposing state of mind was proved by the plaintiffs nor the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were cogently dispelled by them. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant defended the judgments and decrees in question and argued that neither the execution of Will by the testator in sound disposing state of mind was proved by the plaintiffs nor the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were cogently dispelled by them. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case with their assistance, I am not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below on facts as well as on law. I am in agreement with the findings returned by both the learned Courts below that the execution of Will set up by the plaintiffs for claiming the property of Het Ram does not appeal to the conscious and that the alleged Will was shrouded with many suspicious and mysterious circumstances. 4. Regarding execution and proof of the Will, Hon’ble Apex Court after tracing various judicial precedents in (2021)11 SCC 209 , (Kavita Kanwar Vs. Pamela Mehta & others) reiterated that Will is the testamentary document that comes into operation after the death of the testator. Section 59 of the Succession Act provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will. A Will or any portion thereof; the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such importunity that has taken away the free agency of the testator is declared to be void under Section 61 of the Succession Act. Section 62 of the Act enables the maker of the Will to make or alter the same at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property by Will. It was also observed that Section 63 of Succession Act provides for execution of the unprivileged Wills as under:- “63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. —Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, 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.” The Will ought to be attested by two or more attesting witnesses. The document propounded as Will cannot be used in evidence unless one attesting witness is examined for purpose of proving its execution in accordance with following Section 68 of the Evidence Act:- “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 principles settled by consistent decisions, summarized in (2021) 11 SCC 277 (Shiva Kumar Vs. Sharanabassapa were noticed as under in Kavita Kanwar’s case:- 24.8. We need not multiply the references to all and other decisions cited at the Bar, which essentially proceed on the aforesaid principles while applying the same in the given set of facts and circumstances. Suffice would be to point out that in a recent decision in Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009: Shivakumar & Ors. We need not multiply the references to all and other decisions cited at the Bar, which essentially proceed on the aforesaid principles while applying the same in the given set of facts and circumstances. Suffice would be to point out that in a recent decision in Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009: Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasppa & Ors., decided on 24.04.2020, this Court, after traversing through the relevant decisions, has summarised the principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a Will as follows: (SCC pp 309 -10, para 12) “12……. 12.1. Ordinarily, a Will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of Will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon. 12.2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence. 12.3. The unique feature of a Will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last Will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a Will. 12.4. The case in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator. 12.5. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator. 12.5. If a person challenging the Will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the Will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. 12.6. A circumstance is “suspicious” when it is not normal or is ‘not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person’. As put by this Court, the suspicious features must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely the ‘fantasy of the doubting mind.’ 12.7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as “suspicious” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the Will by the beneficiary thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances above-noted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the Will. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. 12.8. On the other hand, any of the circumstance qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. 12.8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the Will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance/s. While applying such test, the Court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the Will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? 12.9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the Court and the party which sets up the Will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.” 5. Coming to the facts of the case, the plaintiffs in order to prove the execution of the Will (Ex.P-1) produced its scribe Balak Ram as PW-3, one attesting witness Chint Ram as PW-4 and Sub-Registrar Gariba Ram as PW-5. Plaintiff No.2 Leeladhar appeared in the witness-box as PW-2. Regarding execution of the Will in question, there are too many material discrepancies to ignore in the evidence led by the plaintiffs. 5(a) Presence of Tehsildar PW-3 Balak Ram, the scribe, deposed that Tehsildar was not present on the spot when Will was written by him. That the Tehsildar had not come in his presence. The attesting witness Chint Ram (PW-4) testified that Tehsildar was present at the time of writing of the Will by Balak Ram (PW-3). Gariba Ram the Tehsildar, who appeared in the witness box as PW-5, stated that the Will was prepared in his presence after he reached the spot. Plaintiff No.2 Leeladhar, who appeared as PW-2 deposed that the Will in question was written by Tehsildar Gariba Ram (PW-5) in his presence. There is no escape from conclusion that all the witnesses of the plaintiffs have deposed differently in respect of the presence of Tehsildar on the spot at the time of execution of the alleged Will dated 23.11.2005 and regarding the execution of the Will. There is no escape from conclusion that all the witnesses of the plaintiffs have deposed differently in respect of the presence of Tehsildar on the spot at the time of execution of the alleged Will dated 23.11.2005 and regarding the execution of the Will. 5(b) Age of the Testator Gariba Ram (PW-5) and Balak Ram (PW-3) have described the age of the testator as 70 years in their statements, whereas, in the Will, Ex.P-1, the scribe Balak Ram (PW-3), mentioned the testator to be 95 years old. The testator (Het Ram) was not known personally either to Gariba Ram (PW-5) or to scribe Balak Ram (PW-3). In the alleged Will, the testator has been shown to have been identified by one Bhagirath. The identifier has not been produced in the witness-box. The identity of this identifier is also not very clear. Beneficiaries of the Will were minors, whereas the Tehsildar-the Sub-Registrar stated that they were around 30-32 years of age. 5(c) Time of writing the Will Scribe Balak Ram (PW-3) stated that he was summoned by the deceased in the hotel at Nihri. He started writing the Will at 1:00 pm and finished it by 2:00 pm. He further stated that Tehsildar did not reach the spot during his presence and that he might have arrived at around 3:00 pm. The attesting witness Chint Ram (PW-4) said that Will was written by 11:00 am and Tehsildar had arrived at 1:00 pm. All the witnesses have deposed differently regarding the time of writing the Will and about the presence of the Tehsildar. 5(d) Place of execution The case of the plaintiffs was that the Will had been executed at a hotel belonging to one Hans Raj in village Nihri. The testator was sick and could not walk. He was brought on shoulders by some persons from his village Samoul to the hotel of Hans Raj at Village Nihri after covering a long distance on foot between the two villages. It has come on record that Tehsil office was at about 100 meters from the hotel in question. In case, the testator had been brought by carrying him on shoulders as put forth by the plaintiffs, then why he was not straight away taken to the Tehsil office for execution and registration of the Will, is an important question. It has come on record that Tehsil office was at about 100 meters from the hotel in question. In case, the testator had been brought by carrying him on shoulders as put forth by the plaintiffs, then why he was not straight away taken to the Tehsil office for execution and registration of the Will, is an important question. The plaintiffs have tried to circumvent answering this question by stating that Tehsildar was not present in the office, therefore, they had to stay put in the hotel of Hans Raj at village Nihri for two days for execution of the Will on 23.11.2005. In sharp contrast to this stand, the statement of Tehsildar Gariba Ram (PW-5) is that he was present in his office on 20th, 21st and 22nd November, 2005. The Will in question Ex.P-1, is alleged to have been executed in the hotel of Hans Raj on 23.11.2005, whereas, the computerized receipt of its entry Ex.PW-5/A, bears thumb mark of testator Het Ram. The said receipt was admittedly prepared at the office of Sub Registrar. Testator admittedly did not go to the office of the Tehsildar yet his thumb impression appears in the receipt prepared at the office. There is no photograph of testator Het Ram on this receipt. The execution of the Will comes under cloud. Further, as per Gariba Ram (PW-5), the Will was entered on the computer the same day it was executed, whereas perusal of Ex.PW-5/B, reflects that the Will was presented only on 08.12.2005. 5(e) Reasons for Execution of the Will The plaintiffs have not explained the reasons for execution of the alleged Will by Het Ram in their favour. The case put forth by the plaintiffs is that Het Ram was their Uncle. Himti Devi (defendant No.2) was his wife. The relationship between the two was strained for the past about 40 years, for the reason, that defendant No.2 was residing with Het Ram’s brother Paras Ram. Defendant No.1, Kaushalya Devi was daughter of Paras Ram & Himti Devi and not of Het Ram. Defendant No.1 was wrongly recorded as daughter of Het Ram in the family register. The plaintiffs set out that Het Ram was being looked after by them and he, out of love and affection and in a sound disposing state of mind had executed the Will dated 23.11.2005 in their favour. Defendant No.1 was wrongly recorded as daughter of Het Ram in the family register. The plaintiffs set out that Het Ram was being looked after by them and he, out of love and affection and in a sound disposing state of mind had executed the Will dated 23.11.2005 in their favour. Narayan Singh, the natural guardian and father of the minor plaintiffs through whom the suit was filed did not step into the witness-box. Minor plaintiff No.2 appeared as PW-2. He was allowed to depose after the learned trial Court was satisfied about his comprehension power. He categorically deposed that the Will, Ex.P-1, was prepared by Paras Ram in plaintiffs’ favour. This assertion is contrary to the case set up by the plaintiffs about the alleged Will having been executed by Het Ram. The statement of PW-2 unearths plaintiffs’ shallow claim about the Will. PW-2 has further stated that Het Ram was being looked after right till his death by his wife Himti Devi and daughter Kaushalya Devi. He has expressed his ignorance that the property of Het Ram was in possession of his wife Himti Devi and daughter Kaushalya Devi. Thus, the pivotal witness Leeladhar, the plaintiff himself, admitted that Het Ram was being looked after by his wife and daughter and it is for this reason that the witness pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion concerning property of Het Ram being in possession of Himti Devi and Kaudhalya Devi. Het Ram, thus, had no reasons to disinherit the defendants. An application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to place on record an earlier Will allegedly executed by the testator on 05.08.1996 was turned down by the learned trial Court on the ground of document being irrelevant to the case. Alongwith their first appeal, the plaintiffs moved application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to produce the earlier Will dated 05.08.21996. Prayer was rightly not allowed by the learned First Appellate Court. The fact regarding existence of the earlier registered will dated 05.08.1996 was already established through Het Ram’s statement recorded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was part of record. No relief even otherwise had been claimed in the Civil Suit on the basis of Will dated 05.08.1996. The suit was instituted on the basis of alleged Will dated 23.11.2005. The fact regarding existence of the earlier registered will dated 05.08.1996 was already established through Het Ram’s statement recorded in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was part of record. No relief even otherwise had been claimed in the Civil Suit on the basis of Will dated 05.08.1996. The suit was instituted on the basis of alleged Will dated 23.11.2005. The plaint did not contain any pleading concerning the Will dated 05.08.1996 The plaintiffs have also brought on record the statements of Het Ram and Himti Devi recorded in the proceedings under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the judgment passed by the competent Court in the said proceedings alongwith certain other ancillary documents exhibited as PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/E. These proceedings (No.139 /1997) were initiated in the year 1997 and culminated on 09.09.1999. The documents, Ex.PW-6/A to Ex.PW-6/E, do show that there was a litigation between Himti Devi and Het Ram. Het Ram believed that the daughter born to his wife was born out of her association with his brother Paras Ram. He had executed a Will dated 05.08.1996 in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property. Even assuming these facts to be correct, the next question crops up: - when Het Ram had already executed a Will on 08.05.1996 in favour of the plaintiffs regarding the suit property, there was no occasion for him to execute the second Will on 23.11.2005 to the same effect. It was for the plaintiffs to explain the circumstances under which the two Wills at different intervals, in favour of the same beneficiaries and with respect to the same subject matter, had to be executed by the testator. This question was to be answered either by the beneficiaries of the Will or by their father. The father of the beneficiaries did not step into the witness-box. Out of the two minor beneficiaries i.e. the plaintiffs, one appeared in the witness box as PW-2. He stated nothing about this aspect, but did depose that Het Ram was being looked after by the defendant Kaushalya Devi and her mother Himti Devi. He did not deny that suit property was in their possession. From documents on record, in such circumstances, an inference can be safely drawn that the relations between Het Ram and the defendants perhaps were strained till 1999, but improved thereafter. He did not deny that suit property was in their possession. From documents on record, in such circumstances, an inference can be safely drawn that the relations between Het Ram and the defendants perhaps were strained till 1999, but improved thereafter. The plaintiffs were under apprehension that Het Ram would leave his property in favour of the defendants by revoking his first Will dated 05.08.1996. For this reason, they thought of getting executed from him a second Will. The old and infirm testator had statedly been carried on shoulders for the execution of the alleged Will from his village to another village. He was made to stay in a hotel there for two days on the pretext of non-availability of Tehsildar, whereas the Tehsildar was actually available in the Tehsil office. In such a case, undue exertion of coercion and pressure on Het Ram cannot be ruled out. Plaintiff No.2 admitted that testator was being looked after by his wife & daughter who were also in possession of the suit property. The Will set up by the plaintiffs was not established to have been duly executed by the testator. The document propounded as Will was surrounded with too many material suspicious circumstances, which the plaintiffs were not able to dispel. The cumulative effect of these factors does not satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will in question represented the last wish of the testator. Both the learned Courts below have justly dismissed the suit filed by the appellants after correctly examining the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. The findings of facts recorded by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the present appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.