JUDGMENT : 1. The instant is the appeal by the defendant under Section 100 of the CPC. The challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2002 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Durg. The appellate Court vide impugned judgment has reversed the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002, whereby the Trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Thereby the First Appellate Court has allowed the suit for declaration in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The instant second appeal was admitted for hearing on 23.12.2014 wherein the following substantial question of law was framed : “Whether the first appellate Court was justified while reversing the finding of the trial Court holding that the alleged will-deed exhibit P-1 dated 09.05.1987 has been properly executed and proved in favour of the plaintiffs before the Court below or not” 3. The suit property in the instant case is the land which situates in Khasra No.321, 544, 722, 809, 1077, 1173, 1517 measuring 4.90 Hectares at Village Semariya, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg. The said property originally was owned by one Devantin Bai. Devantin Bai was survived by three children, son Jagdish and two daughters Daya Bai and Maitrin Bai. The plaintiff is the son of Devantin Bai. 4. According to the plaintiffs case, all the aforesaid property after death of Devantin Bai, it is the plaintiffs who would inherit the said property which stood in the name of Devantin Bai and defendant no. 1 & 2, the two sisters of the plaintiff by virtue of a Will was granted land situated at Khasra No.722 measuring 0.25 Hectares. The said property was thereafter recorded in the name of defendant no.1 & 2 in the revenue records. 5. The dispute arose when the defendant no.1 & 2 after the death of Devantin Bai applied for mutation and partition of the entire property that stood in the name of Devantin Bai and Tehsildar of Ahirwara, District Durg mutated the said land in the name of plaintiff and defendant no.1 & 2 vide order dated 22.08.1995 and ordered for partition. 6. It was here that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the trial Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 58 A of 2002 seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction. 6. It was here that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the trial Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 58 A of 2002 seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The claim of the plaintiff was on the basis of an alleged will that was executed on 09.05.1987. Further Tehsildar also initiated partition proceedings on the basis of mutation that was done earlier. The trial Court initially vide judgment dated 31.10.2002 dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has not been able to sufficiently prove the execution of the will dated 09.05.1987 executed by the Devantin Bai in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The rejection of suit vide judgment dated 31.10.2002 was subjected to challenge before the First Appellate Court vide Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2002. The First Appellate Court however did not accept the finding of the trial Court particularly as regards proving of Will is concerned and reversing the finding of the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the Will dated 09.05.1987 was in fact clearly proved and established by the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The First Appellate Court allowing the first appeal ordered for issuance of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs so far as his right over the suit property is concerned. It is this judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeal in favour of the plaintiffs and by grant of declaration, which stands challenged in the instant second appeal. 8. The plaintiff in support of his contentions had led evidence of three persons PW-1 Jagdish, the plaintiff himself, PW-2 Agrahit Singh Mahilang, PW-3 Jagdish Prasad Sahu. PW-2, Agrahit Singh Mahilang was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Semariya in the year 1987. According to PW-2 it was he to whom the original owner of the property Devantin Bai had made a request for preparing of the will and as per will 0.25 Hectares was to be given to in favour of the two daughters of Devantin Bai i.e. defendant no.1 & 2 and rest of the property was to be given in favour fo the plaintiff. Similarly PW-3, Up-Sarpanch in the year 1987 was also examined who was also present when the said will dated 09.05.1987 was executed. 9. Per contra on behalf of defendant, it was only defendant no.1 who was examined. Similarly PW-3, Up-Sarpanch in the year 1987 was also examined who was also present when the said will dated 09.05.1987 was executed. 9. Per contra on behalf of defendant, it was only defendant no.1 who was examined. There was no additional evidence that has been led by the defendants. 10. In the given facts what now has to be seen is the evidentiary value of evidence and deposition led by the witnesses examined before the trial Court. 11. It was the plaintiff who had gone to the court seeking for a declaration in the light of so called Will executed on 09.08.1987. The substantial question of law in this regard is also “whether the finding of the first appellate court accepting the Will deed dated 09.08.1987 to have been properly executed and proved in favour of the plaintiff or not?” 12. Now there were three witnesses who have been examined by the plaintiff. One is the plaintiff himself Jagdish Das Manikpuri, PW-1. The other was the witness number-2 Agrahij Singh Mahilang who was then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Semariya. The third witness was Jagdish Prasad Sahu who was the then Up Sarpanch of the said Gram Panchayat, Semariya. PW-2 and PW-3 are the witnesses who have been cited to prove the so called Will Ex. P/1 dated 09.08.1987. 13. From the plain reading of the evidences recorded of these witnesses including that of the plaintiff would reflect great amount of contradictions and inconsistencies in their respective statement by which a strong doubt is created as regards the genuineness of the Will 09.08.1987. At the first instance the plaintiff in his cross examination in paragraph 3 states that the alleged Will Ex.P/1 was not written in front of him. He further makes a statement that he does not know who were witnesses to the said Will Ex.P/1. The relevant portion of the said contents of the plaintiff is reproduced hereinunder: **iz0ih0&1 dk olh;rukek esjs lkeus ugha fy[kk x;k gSA iz0ih0&1 esa dkSu&dkSu xokgh gLrk{kj fd;k mldks Hkh ugha tkurkA-----** He further accepts that the executant of the Will Devanteen Bai had died in the same year in which the Will was executed. He further submits that for about 2 years before the date of execution of the Will itself Devanteen Bai was not keeping well. 14. He further submits that for about 2 years before the date of execution of the Will itself Devanteen Bai was not keeping well. 14. PW-2, Agrahij Singh Mahilang, the Sarpanch of the Village in his deposition has made certain statements like he had written the Will Ex. P/1 as per the instructions of Devanteen Bai and also looking into the Rin Pustika belonging to Devanteen Bai. In his evidence he has in paragraph 4 in very categorical terms said that Devanteen Bai from one eye was totally blind and from the other eye she could only faintly see. For ready reference, this portion of his evidence is reproduced hereinunder : **;g dguk lgh gS fd olh;rukek fy[krs le; nsoarhuckbZ dk ,d vk¡[k fcYdqy ugha fn[kkbZ nsrk Fkk vkSj ,d vk¡[k esa /kqa/kyk fn[kkbZ nsrk FkkA iapk;r Hkou esa lkfyd jke vkSj txnh'k igys ls gh cSBs gq, FksA------** 15. In paragraph-1 he states that he has written the Will as per the instructions of Devanteen Bai. However, in paragraph-2 he makes a statement that Ex. P/1 was written by him as per the dictation of PW-3, the Up Sarpanch. For ready reference this part of the evidence of PW-2 is also being reproduced hereinunder : **iz0ih0&1 dk olh;rukek esa mi ljiap ds crk, vuqlkj fy[kkA mi ljiap cksyrs x;k vkSj eSa fy[krs x;kA----** 16. PW-2, Agrahij Singh Mahilang, in his statement has also made a statement that when Devanteen Bai came she had also another paper in her hand on the basis of which Ex.P/1 was executed. There is no evidence whatsoever to establish that the paper which Devanteen Bai had brought along with Rin Pustika was got prepared by Devanteen Bai herself for her purpose as per her wish or will and as to what was the contents of that documents. 17. Referring to the averments in the preceding paragraph what is evident is that Devanteen Bai was not keeping in good health. She was totally blind from one eye. She was only able to see faintly from one of her eyes, coupled with this fact she was also illiterate. In that circumstances who had drafted the paper which Devanteen Bai had brought for the preparation of the Will? Was it as per her intention, has not been established or explained before the Trial Court. 18. She was only able to see faintly from one of her eyes, coupled with this fact she was also illiterate. In that circumstances who had drafted the paper which Devanteen Bai had brought for the preparation of the Will? Was it as per her intention, has not been established or explained before the Trial Court. 18. To make things worse, PW-2 further in his evidence paragraph-3 makes another statement that whatever he has written has been written as per the instructions of PW-3, Jagdish Prasad Sahu. For ready reference the said averment in his statement also is reproduced hereinunder : **;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa ftruk Hkh olh;rukek fy[kk gw¡ og txnh'k izlkn lkgw ds crk;s vuqlkj gh fy[kk gw¡A----** 19. Now coming to the evidence of PW-3 in paragraph-2, the said witness Jagdish Prasad Sahu, who was the Up Sarpanch at the relevant time makes a statement that Devanteen Bai is illiterate and that Devanteen Bai narrated in Chhattisgarhi language which was translated by PW-2, Agrahij Singh Mahilang while writing the contents of Ex.P/1, the Will Deed dated 09.08.1987. In continuation, he further makes a statement that he did not instruct Agrahij Singh Mahilang what to write in Ex.P/1. This is just in contravention to the statement made by Agrahij Singh Mahilang who has stated that whatever he has written was as was narrated by PW-3, Jagdish Prasad Sahu. For ready reference, this statement of PW-3 is being reproduced hereinunder : **nsoarhuckbZ vuiढ+ efgyk FkhA nsoarhuckbZ NRrhlxढ+h esa cksyh gS vkSj mldks vxzkfgt flag vius Hkk"kk esa fy[kk gSA eSusa vxzkfgt flag dks dSls D;k fy[kuk gS blds laca/k esa dqN ugh crk;k gSA------** Witness PW-3 further makes a statement in his cross examination that the Will was prepared taking into consideration the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. This portion of his evidence is also being reproduced hereinunder; **lk{kh Lor% dgrk gS fd iapk;r vf/kfu;e dks ns[kdj olh;rukek fy[kk x;k gSA------** 20. There is yet another contravention between the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 which is that as per PW-2 the execution of the Will was entered in the Register maintained in the Panchayat Bhawan and this fact can be verified from the dispatch Register itself which is maintained in the Panchayat Bhawan. Contrary to this, PW-3 makes a statement that the execution of Ex.P/1 was not entered in the Register at the Gram Panchayat. 21. Contrary to this, PW-3 makes a statement that the execution of Ex.P/1 was not entered in the Register at the Gram Panchayat. 21. All the aforesaid contentions of these three witnesses are in self contradiction to each other which create a great element of doubt so far as the Will being genuine. 22. There is another fact which needs appreciation is that PW-2 and PW-3 both state that when the Will was executed Deventeen Bai, the executant, had came to the Panchayat Bhawan along with the son of the Plaintiff. But, this son of Plaintiff has not been examined. 23. When the claim of the plaintiff is primarily on the basis of a Will it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to ensure that the Will is proved by authentic cogent evidence which would meet the test as is required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. In case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur & Others, 1977 (1) SCC 369 the Supreme Court dealing with a circumstances where the contention was that the Will was shrouded in suspicion has held as under : “9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a 'cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will.” 24. Similarly, again in case of Bharpur Singh & Ors. v. Shamsher Singh, 2009 (3) SCC 687 in paragraph 23 certain circumstances where the Wills could be considered to be shrouded in suspicion have been narrated. For ready reference paragraph 23 is quoted hereinunder : “23. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the will: (i) The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. For ready reference paragraph 23 is quoted hereinunder : “23. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the will: (i) The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. (ii) The condition of the testator's mind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time. (iii) The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason. (iv) The dispositions may not appear to be the result of the testator's free will and mind. (v) The propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will. (vi) The testator used to sign blank papers. (vii) The will did not see the light of the day for long. (viii) Incorrect recitals of essential facts.” 25. In B. Venkatmuni Vs. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Others, 2006 (13) SCC 449, the Supreme Court has held that the court must satisfy its conscious as regards due execution of the Will by the Testator and the court should not refuse to probe deeper into the matter only because signature of the propounder on the Will is otherwise proved, rather should also test the genuinity of the Will, and the Supreme Court has observed as under : “9. It may be true, as has been opined by the Division Bench of the High Court, that proof of execution of the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act would be a pre-requisite, but, to take the same in evidence it is also trite that while arriving at a finding as to whether the Will has duly been executed or not, the court must satisfy its conscience having regard to the totality of the circumstances………..In the event of suspicion in regard to the genuineness or otherwise, the Will must be proved to have been executed in accordance with law establishing that the same has been done in presence of at least two witnesses. Although, the court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in this behalf should be followed………...” 26. Although, the court should not approach the question with a suspicion that the Will is not a genuine one, the general guidelines laid down by this Court and the High Court in this behalf should be followed………...” 26. The Will when it has to be proved of its genuinity, it must be proved by proving the intention of the Testator to make the testament. That valid, cogent and concrete evidence must also be led before the court to put confidence in the deposition of the witnesses in support of the execution of the Will. 27. Recently in case of Kavita Kanwar Vs. Pamela Mehta and Others, 2021 (11) SCC 209 the Supreme Court while dealing with the various aspects of Will shrouded with suspicion, in paragraph 37 has narrated all the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court on the subject matter and held in paragraph 37 as under : “37. The discussion foregoing is sufficient to find that thick clouds of suspicious circumstances are hovering over the Will in question which have not been cleared; rather every suspicious circumstance is confounded by another and the curious case of the alleged third page of the Will effectively and completely demolishes the case of the appellant. Put differently, it is difficult to be satisfied that what is literally coming out of the document in question had been the last wish and desire of the testatrix as regards succession of her estate. On the contrary, we find enough and cogent reasons to affirm the material findings of the Trial Court and the High Court that it cannot be said that the testatrix executed and signed the document in question as her Will after having understood the meaning, effect and purport of the contents.” 28. The view taken by the Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar (Supra) was relying upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Shivakumar and Others Vs. Sharanbasappa & Others, wherein in paragraph 12.1, 12.4, 12.6, 12.8 and 12.9 it has been held as under : “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. 12.4. 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. 12.4. 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. 12.6. 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.’ 12.8. 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.” 29. Given the aforesaid judicial precedents this court based upon the evidences which also have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs finds that the Will on the basis of which the plaintiff is making his claim is shrouded with suspicion. The deposition of the two so called attesting witnesses also do not repose confidence enough to accept that the Will has been genuinely executed by the Testator. The deposition of the two so called attesting witnesses also do not repose confidence enough to accept that the Will has been genuinely executed by the Testator. The timing at which the Will was executed, the health condition of the Testator, various self contradictory statements made by the two attesting witnesses and also that of the plaintiff himself, this court is of the opinion that the findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court treating the Will dated 09.08.1987 to have been properly executed and proved, does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. 30. The substantial question of law is therefore answered in the negative holding that the First Appellate Court was not justified while reversing the finding of the Trial Court holding the Will to have been properly executed and proved. 31. The Second Appeal accordingly stands allowed. The impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 17.11.2004 therefore stands set aside/quashed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the dismissal of the suit. 32. Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly.