JUDGMENT : R.S.A No.146 of 2006 arises from O.S No.458 of 1993. It is a suit for a declaration that Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed executed by the plaintiff(father) in favour of his daughters(defendants) are not binding on the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property. Pending the suit, the original plaintiff(father) died. His son and daughter in law and his wife got impleaded as additional plaintiffs 2 to 4. Wife passed away pending the suit. 2. R.S.A No.201 of 2006 arises from O.S No.250 of 1995 filed by the daughters against their brother, for prohibitory injunction against interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 3. The suits were jointly tried. O.S No.458 of 1993 was taken as the leading case. O.S No.458 of 1993 was decreed and O.S No.250 of 1995 was dismissed. The decree was confirmed in appeal. It is challenging the same that these Regular Second Appeals have been filed by the daughters-sisters. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to according to their status in O.S.No.458 of 1993. 4. The plaint schedule property has an extent of 13 cents. Admittedly the property belonged to the original plaintiff – father. He executed Ext B2 Will dated 22.09.1977 bequeathing the property in favour of his daughters(appellants-defendants). Subsequently he executed Ext A11 Will dated 15.07.1991 bequeathing the property in favour of his son and daughter in law(respondents). Thereafter, on 31.10.1992 he executed Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed in favour of his daughters(appellants-defendants). This was followed by Ext A1 Cancellation Deed dated 13.11.1992, cancelling the Settlement Deed. The original plaintiff – father filed the suit against the daughters challenging the Settlement Deed on the ground that the same is vitiated by fraud, collusion, misrepresentation and undue influence. It was claimed that he was made to believe that a Will is being executed. The defendants defended the document. 5. The trial court found that the evidence of DW3, the witness to Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed, is not reliable and that the circumstances indicate that Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed is vitiated. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The decree was affirmed in appeal. 6. The defendants defended the document. 5. The trial court found that the evidence of DW3, the witness to Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed, is not reliable and that the circumstances indicate that Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed is vitiated. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The decree was affirmed in appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.Deepak on behalf of the appellants – defendants, and Sri.P.K.Subramonian on behalf of the respondents – plaintiffs, on the following substantial question of law:- “(i) Do the evidence on record establish that Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed is vitiated for the reasons alleged by the plaintiffs? (ii) Has the plaintiff discharged the burden to substantiate the challenge against Ext A2 = Ext B3?” 7. Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that, even according to the plaintiff(father), he intended to execute a document; his allegation is that he did not intend to execute a settlement deed but, a Will. When there already existed Ext A11 Will in favour of the son and daughter in law, there is no reason why another Will should have been executed in their favour. Execution of any document would necessarily be to interfere with or modify the disposition under Ext A11 Will. Therefore, that he intended to execute a settlement deed is only probable, it is contended. It is further argued that, the production of original prior deeds namely Exts B1 and B3 by the defendants establish that the father intended to convey the property to the defendants. The courts went wrong in discarding the evidence of DW3, the witness to the document. At any rate, Ext A11 Will has not been proved, in the absence of which the title of the plaintiff could not be declared, it is contended. 8. The fact that the father – the original plaintiff was a feeble minded person, is evident from the successive documents he executed in favour of the daughters and the son changing the beneficiary one after the other. The reason for execution of Ext B2 Will bequeathing the property in favour of the daughters was suggested to be the wayward life of his son. Subsequently the son gave up his habits and started living with his father whereupon Ext A11 Will was executed in favour of the son and daughter in law. 9. The reason for execution of Ext B2 Will bequeathing the property in favour of the daughters was suggested to be the wayward life of his son. Subsequently the son gave up his habits and started living with his father whereupon Ext A11 Will was executed in favour of the son and daughter in law. 9. Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed was executed when the son was not in station. It was the specific case of 1st defendant as DW1 that, neither she nor her husband had any role in the execution of Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed. However, it came out in evidence that the husband of DW1 had accompanied the original plaintiff to the office of the scribe, which shows their involvement in the transaction. To prove the Settlement Deed, the second witness to the said deed was examined as DW3. The courts found his evidence to be unbelievable. According to him, he is a carpenter. While he was doing carpentry work at another place, the original plaintiff accidentally met him and required him to do works for him. When he went to the plaintiff for work, he was asked to be a witness to the document. Even the other witness to the document is brought by DW3, for signing as witness. The circumstances which led DW3 to be a witness, that he brought the other witness etc, are strange. Added to all this is the fact that DW3 admitted that he did not do any carpentry works for the original plaintiff. The courts rightly discarded the evidence of DW3. 10. Under Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed, no property is given to the wife of the original plaintiff though she was alive. As regards the production of originals of the prior deeds relating to the property namely Exts B1 and B3 by the defendants, it is the case of the original plaintiff that the said documents were taken away by the daughters. DW1 deposed that the documents were handed over to her by the father after execution of the settlement deed and that the documents were kept at the house. In the course of her deposition, the statement was varied to the effect that the documents were taken to her residence at Coonnur. Again, she would change her version and state that the documents were found from the drawer of her father. In the course of her deposition, the statement was varied to the effect that the documents were taken to her residence at Coonnur. Again, she would change her version and state that the documents were found from the drawer of her father. It is to be noticed that the father had given a police complaint alleging that the original title deeds were taken away by his daughters. In the light of the above, mere production of the original prior deeds namely Exts B1 and B3 by the defendants does not advance their case. The courts below analysed the entire circumstances and evidence and held against Ext A2 = Ext B3 Settlement Deed. The courts have analysed the evidence in extenso. No material could be brought to the notice of this court to arrive at a different conclusion. 11. Though the learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the burden of proof was wrongly cast on the appellants to support the document, it is to be noticed that, once evidence is adduced by both sides and what remains is appreciation of evidence by the courts. The courts have concurrently appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, and had held against Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed. The said finding warrants no interference. The substantial questions of law are answered as above. 12. Having found that Ext A2 = Ext B3 settlement deed does not affect the plaint schedule property, what remains to be considered is, the title claimed by the additional plaintiffs under Ext A11 Will executed by the father, the original plaintiff. The plaint was amended claiming right under the Will. The defendants did not file any additional written statement challenging the Will. The mental capacity of the father is not under challenge. Ext A5 is the notice dated 09.04.1992 issued by the father-original plaintiff to the defendants intimating them about the Ext A11 Will. Therefore, it could not be contended that they were not aware of the Will. PW2 is the scribe of Ext A11 Will. PW4 is one of the witnesses to Ext A11 Will. The evidence of PW4 satisfies the ingredients of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. No suspicious circumstances have been brought out. The trial court appreciated the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and upheld Ext A11 Will. PW2 is the scribe of Ext A11 Will. PW4 is one of the witnesses to Ext A11 Will. The evidence of PW4 satisfies the ingredients of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. No suspicious circumstances have been brought out. The trial court appreciated the evidence of PW2 and PW4 and upheld Ext A11 Will. The lower appellate court, though dismissed the appeal by the defendant did not enter a finding on Ext A11. The suits being of the year 1993, I do not deem it appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate court. Under Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court has the power to look into the evidence and consider the correctness of the finding entered into by the trial court on Ext A11 Will. On the evidence as indicated above, the finding of the trial court that Ext A11 Will is valid and genuine is only to be affirmed and I do so. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeals fail, and are dismissed.