JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the appellants assail the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. camp at Bilaspur, in Civil Appeal No. 35/13 of 2009, titled as Jagat Pal vs. Roshan Lal and others, dated 28.02.2011, in terms whereof, the learned Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, after setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 14/1 of 1996, titled as Jagat Pal and another Vs. Roshan Lal and others, dated 29.06.2009, whereby the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. Briefs facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the contesting respondents/plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘plaintiffs’ for convenience sake) filed a suit against the present appellants/contesting defendants for possession of two rooms in a house situated on suit land comprised in Khewat No. 31/89, Khatoni No. 90/109 min old Khasra No. 39/519 and new Khasra Nos. 845, 846, Kita 2 measuring 207-25 square desi meters, situated in Up Muhal Lakhanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. on the ground that Bardu Ram was the owner in possession of the suit land and after him, the plaintiffs were in possession of the house situated on the suit land except two rooms. These two rooms were occupied by the defendants. The possession of the two rooms was given to the contesting defendants with the permission of Bardu Ram, who happened to be the grand-father of the plaintiffs and father of contesting defendant No. 1 and father-in-law of contesting defendant No. 2. As per the plaintiffs, Bardu Ram was maltreated by contesting defendants after their marriage. They never looked after Bardu Ram till his death, yet Bardu Ram took mercy upon them and as they were not having any place to live, Bardu Ram gave two rooms in the house to the contesting defendants for a period of two years with the condition that in the meanwhile, contesting defendants would construct their own house and vacate the said premises. Bardu Ram executed a Will of the said premises as well as other land/suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and after his death, mutation of the estate of Bardu Ram was attested in favour of the plaintiffs on 22.09.1995, on the basis of this Will. Bardu Ram died on 21.08.1995 and his last rites were performed by the father of the plaintiffs and the contesting defendants did not even mourn the death of Bardu Ram nor they incurred any expenditure for his last rites. Further as per the plaintiffs, they were having a large family and in lieu thereof, defendant No. 1 was called upon to vacate the premises but he refused to do so despite notice having been served upon him. On 31.12.1995, in the presence of local persons, plaintiffs requested the contesting defendants to hand over possession of the said two rooms under their occupation but the defendants refused to do so, hence, the suit. 3. The suit was resisted by the contesting defendants inter alia on the ground that defendant No. 1 was the owner in possession of the property in dispute to the extent of ½ share being the legal heir/son of Bardu Ram. As per defendant No. 1, plaintiffs had no right over the half portion of the suit land which was inherited by defendant No. 1 and the same included the suit premises. As per the defendants, two rooms were given by Bardu Ram to defendant No. 1 about two decades ago with the condition that defendant No. 1 shall be residing therein with his family. It was further the case of the contesting defendants that deceased Bardu parted with possession of the suit premises in favour of defendant No. 1 with the clear intention that defendant No. 1 was to be owner in possession thereof and other family members of the Bardu Ram were not to interfere with the enjoyment rights of defendant No. 1 in the said two rooms. Therefore, according to the contesting defendants, as they were occupying the rooms in their capacity as owners thereof, the suit was not maintainable. In the written statement, it was denied that any Will was executed by Bardu Ram in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged. Therefore, according to the contesting defendants, as they were occupying the rooms in their capacity as owners thereof, the suit was not maintainable. In the written statement, it was denied that any Will was executed by Bardu Ram in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged. It was further stated in the written statement that in case ownership of defendant No. 1 was not proved, then his title stood matured by way of adverse possession. As per defendant No. 1, defendants duly participated in the last rites of his father and no notice as alleged by the plaintiffs was ever issued to the defendants for the purpose of vacation of the suit premises. 4. In the replication, while denying the allegations raised in the written statement, the plaintiffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the following Issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land property by way of Will as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the defendants were occupying the suit land property with the consent of Bardu Ram, for a fixed period of two years, as alleged? OPP 3. Issue No. 2 is proved in the affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the site plan of the house is not proper? If so its effect? OPD 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether Bardu Ram deceased did not execute any Will? OPD 8. Whether the defendants have become owners in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as alleged? 9. Relief. 6. On the strength of pleadings and evidence led by the parties in support of their respective cases, the Issues so framed were answered by the learned Trial Court as under:- Issue No. 1: No. Issue No. 2: No. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4: No. Issue No. 5: No. Issue No. 6: No. Issue No. 7: Yes Issue No. 8: No. Relief : The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed as per the operative part of my judgment. 7. 7. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiffs had not become the owners of the suit property on the basis of the Will nor the defendants were occupying the suit property with the consent of Bardu Ram for a fixed period of two years as alleged. It also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for relief of possession of the suit property. It held that the alleged Will executed by Bardu Ram in favour of the plaintiffs, was executed on 04.03.1985, whereas Bardu Ram died on 21.08.1995. It observed that it was mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiffs that Bardu Ram remained bed ridden for the last more than 10 years, and in this view of the matter, the execution of the Will was highly suspicious as how a person who was bed ridden for the last 10 years could have had executed a Will in the year 1985. Learned Trial Court also disbelieved the statements of the scribe of the Will as well as marginal witness inter alia by holding that their statements were not trustworthy as PW1 had stated in his cross examination that Bardu Ram had not brought anyone from his house and PW2 Brij Mohan Kundi, one of the attesting witness, though stated that he knew Bardu Ram as they were neighbours but when confronted that what are the names of sons and daughters of Bardu Ram, he could not answer the same. Learned Court thus held that it is not understandable as to why an old person, who was bed ridden as alleged by the plaintiffs themselves, would instead of persons he knew, bring only document writer or stamp vendor to be the marginal witnesses and this shrouded the execution of the Will with suspicious circumstances. Learned Trial Court also held that at the time when the Will was scribed, even plaintiff Jagat Pal was only 20 years old and on account of his age, he was dependent on his parents, therefore, it was but the father of the plaintiffs who was looking after the deceased Bardu, yet, in the Will it was written that Devi Ram alongwith defendant Roshan Lal were not taking care of Bardu Ram which made the Will shrouded with suspicious circumstances. On these bases, learned Trial Court held that Will in question was shrouded with suspicions which could not be removed by the plaintiffs. On these bases, learned Trial Court held that Will in question was shrouded with suspicions which could not be removed by the plaintiffs. On the basis of these findings, the suit was dismissed. 8. In appeal, learned Appellate Court reversed the findings returned by the learned Trial Court. While upholding Will Ext. PW1/A, learned Appellate Court held that the findings returned by learned Trial Court that the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances because plaintiffs themselves alleged in the plaint that deceased Bardu, the testator of the Will, was bed ridden for the last 10 years, were not sustainable in law for the reasons that as the Will was executed in the year 1985, and Bardu Ram died after almost a decade thereafter, therefore, it was quite possible that Bardu became bed ridden in the year 1986 or thereafter. Learned Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs had duly proved the Will by examining the Scribe of the Will Ext. PW1/A Sh. Amar Nath (PW1) as also one of the marginal witness PW2 Brij Lal, who corroborated each other’s statements and further in the cross examination of these witnesses, no suggestion was given to them that Bardu Ram was not in a position to walk at all at the time when he executed the Will. Learned Appellate Court took note of the fact that PW1/A was a registered Will, which was presented by Bardu Ram himself before the Sub Registrar as per record, as was evident from the endorsement of Sub Registrar on it and in terms thereof, the contents of the Will were read over and explained to Bardu Ram who after admitting the same to be correct, put his thumb impression upon it. Learned Appellate Court referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana Vs. Pentakota Setharatnam and others, AIR 2005 (SC) 4362 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that signatures of the Registering Officer and identifying witness affixed to the registration endorsement were sufficient attestation of the Will. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment that endorsement of the Sub Registrar that the executant has acknowledged before him the execution of the Will, also amounts to attestation. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in the said judgment that endorsement of the Sub Registrar that the executant has acknowledged before him the execution of the Will, also amounts to attestation. With regard to findings returned by learned Trial Court that the Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances as marginal witnesses of the Will were the persons working in the Court premises and were not known to Bardu Ram, was concerned, learned Appellate Court by relying upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tara Singh Vs. Shanti, 1988 Civil Court Cases 198 (P&H), held that there was no requirement in law that marginal witness should be from the same locality or from the same village and merely because the witnesses of the Will are from a different village, the same does not constitute a suspicious circumstance particularly when it was not shown that they were interested in the plaintiff or biased against the defendant. Learned Appellate Court observed that in the facts of the present case, it could not be demonstrated that the witness who had deposed in the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, were either interested in the plaintiff or biased against the defendant. With regard to the observation made by learned Trial Court that the statement of PW2 was not trustworthy as he could not state as to who appended the signatures upon the Will first, learned Appellate Court held that this witness was deposing after a period of 20 years of the execution of the Will, therefore, he was not supposed to remember each and every detail. Learned Appellate Court also held that in the case in hand, admittedly, defendant Roshan Lal and his sister Leela Devi never remained with deceased Bardu Ram and this fact stood duly proved on record in the statement of Leela Devi who categorically stated that at the time of death of her mother, she was four years of age and Roshan Lal was of one year old. There was no lady to look after them in the family, and therefore, they shifted to the house of their maternal grandfather where they were brought up and she also admitted that she was not in talking terms with Devi Ram for the last 25 years. There was no lady to look after them in the family, and therefore, they shifted to the house of their maternal grandfather where they were brought up and she also admitted that she was not in talking terms with Devi Ram for the last 25 years. This witness also stated that she had not invited Devi Ram in the marriage of her daughter and that relationship between the siblings were strained and they were not in talking terms. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that copy of order Ext. PW3/O was passed by the Executive Magistrate, in terms whereof, a complaint against Roshan Lal filed by Bardu Ram under Section 107/150 of Cr.P.C. was compromised after Roshan Lal gave a statement that he will not give any further threatening to Bardu Ram. Learned Appellate Court also took note of the fact that legal notice Ext. PW3/C and Ext. PW3/E were issued by Bardu Ram to Roshan Lal for vacating the premises in his possession. On these bases, learned Appellate Court held that there was nothing unnatural in the execution of the Will Ext. PW1/A by Bardu Ram in favour of the plaintiffs, who were his grandsons. 9. Feeling aggrieved, contesting defendants have filed the present appeal, which was admitted on 13.09.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- “2. Whether bare registration of the Will can substitute the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act? 3. Whether the Ext. PW1/A can be said to be a valid Will in the face of various suspicious circumstances as pointed out by the ld. Trial Court? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the ld. Lower Appellate Court below is the result of misreading and misinterpreting the oral as well as documentary evidence especially the oral evidence of PW2 Brij Mohan i.e. the attesting witness? 10. I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties and also carefully gone through the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below as well as record of the case. 11. As all the substantial questions of law are inter dependent, therefore, this Court would be answering all the substantial questions of law collectively. 12. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides as under:- “Section 63 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. 11. As all the substantial questions of law are inter dependent, therefore, this Court would be answering all the substantial questions of law collectively. 12. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides as under:- “Section 63 in 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, 12 [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.” 13. In terms of this provision, it is provided that every testator shall execute his Will by affixing his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. Signature or mark of the testator shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. 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. 14. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the Will in issue Ext. PW1/A, demonstrates that it has been duly signed by the testator. 14. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the Will in issue Ext. PW1/A, demonstrates that it has been duly signed by the testator. The Will is also duly signed by two attesting witnesses. This Court is of the considered view that Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, primarily lays down as to how an unprivileged will is to be executed, however, the veracity of the Will even after its execution is open for scrutiny and in case a Court of law is satisfied that despite the Will having been executed in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the same is shrouded with suspicious circumstances, the same can be interfered with. This is more so true in view of provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Will Ext. PW1/A was proved by the plaintiffs, by examining its scribe PW1 Shri Amar Nath and one of two marginal witnesses, PW2 Brij Mohan Kundi. A perusal of the statement of PW1- Amar Nath) demonstrates that he deposed in the Court that Will in issue was scribed by him on the direction of Bardu Ram. After the same was scribed, he read over and explained the contents of the Will to Bardu Ram, who after understanding the contents thereof appended his thumb impression thereupon. It was thereafter that the two marginal witnesses appended their signatures upon the Will. This witness also deposed that when Bardu Ram had appended his signatures upon the Will, he was in his full senses. This witness also deposed that Bardu Ram was personally known to him. Similarly, PW2 who was one of the marginal witness, deposed that he personally knew Bardu Ram and that Will in issue was scribed by Amar Nath. This witness also deposed in the Court that he and Pyare Lal had appended their signatures upon the Will as attesting witnesses. He also stated that after scribing the Will, Amar Nath had read over and explained the same to Bardu, who thereafter had appended his thumb impression upon the Will and it is thereafter that the marginal witnesses, including him, appended their signatures upon the Will. Now incidentally, a perusal of cross examination of these two witnesses demonstrates that their testimony, to the effect that both of them personally knew Bardu Ram, was not proved to the contrary. Now incidentally, a perusal of cross examination of these two witnesses demonstrates that their testimony, to the effect that both of them personally knew Bardu Ram, was not proved to the contrary. Not only this, both these witnesses, in unison, have deposed the mode and manner in which the Will was executed, i.e. that Will was scribed by the scribe on the instructions of Bardu Ram, which thereafter was read over and explained to Bardu Ram and who after understanding the same, appended his signatures upon the Will and it was thereafter that two marginal witnesses appended their signatures upon the Will. A perusal of the Will Ext. PW1/A further demonstrates that the same was registered with Sub Registrar, District Bilaspur on 11.03.1985 and the Note thereupon is to the effect that the same was registered in the presence of Sub Registrar by the executant of the Will Bardu Ram himself. Not only this, it is further endorsed on this Will that at the time of registration of the Will, the contents thereof were duly read over and explained to Bardu Ram, who acknowledged contents of the Will to be correct. This Court is of the considered view that such evidence which was placed on record by the plaintiff, duly proved the execution of valid Will by late Bardu Ram in favour of the plaintiffs who happened to be his grandsons. 15. Further, a perusal of the Will demonstrates that it is clearly mentioned therein as to why executor was bequeathing his property in favour of grandsons. It is mentioned in the Will that testator had one daughter, who was duly married and as far as his two sons are concerned, they are not looking after him and it were his grandsons who were looking after and maintaining him. The findings returned by the learned Trial Court that it could not be believed that the plaintiffs were looking after Bardu Ram because at the time when Will was executed, age of one of the plaintiff was 20 years old, at the best can be said to be findings based on conjectures because there is nothing proved on record that the grandsons were not looking after and maintaining their grandfather. Be that as it may, from what has been observed hereinabove, as the Will in issue was proved to have been executed by late Shri Bardu Ram and further as the findings which have been returned by learned Appellate Court that the same was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances, are findings which are clearly borne out from the record of the case, therefore, substantial questions of law are answered by holding that though bare registration of the Will cannot substitute the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, execution of Will Ext. PW1/A has been duly proved by the plaintiffs beyond any suspicion, and therefore, the findings which have been arrived at by learned Appellate Court that Will was not shrouded with suspicious circumstances, are correct findings, which this Court upholds. Further this Court also holds that the findings arrived at by learned Appellate Court are not a result of misreading and misinterpreting the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, more so, the statement of PW2 Brij Mohan Kundi, i.e. one of the marginal witness of the Will because the findings returned by learned Appellate Court are borne out from the pleadings as well as evidence on record and there is no misreading or misinterpretation thereof. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. In view of above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the adjudication on the appeal, all miscellaneous application(s) stand closed. No order as to costs.