ORDER : 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 384(3) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter shall be referred to as, 'the Act of 1925'), Bahura and others, who are applicants in both the instant civil revisions, have preferred these civil revisions calling in question the common judgment dated 5.4.2018 passed by the District Judge, Janjgir-Champa by which the learned District Judge has allowed the appeal filed by Darasram granting Succession Certificate in his favour and further dismissed the appeal preferred by the applicants herein. 2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the civil revisions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Two persons namely Narayan and Phool Bai were husband and wife and were issueless. They were murdered and the police had seized total Rs.7,20,102/- as well as some silver & gold ornaments amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- approximately from their house. In the murder case of Narayan and Phool Bai, one Suresh & three other accused persons were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 460/34 of IPC in Sessions Trial No.93/2010 before the Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa. In the said sessions trial, the original applicant Mahadev Das had submitted an application for grant of the aforesaid seized property on supurdnama in his favour stating inter-alia that the deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were his fufa and bua and he being the nearest relative of Narayan and Phool Bai is their successor and accordingly he is entitled for the seized amount and ornaments. However, the Sessions Court vide its order dated 28.10.2010, rejected the said application for supurdnama holding that since the issue of successor of the deceased persons is yet to be decided before the Succession Court and therefore the seized property cannot be handed over to the original applicant Mahadev Das. Subsequently, the Sessions Court vide its final order dated 8.11.2010 also held that the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate and further directed that in case no Succession Certificate is submitted within a period of one year, the seized property would be confiscated in favour of the Government. 4. Subsequently, the Sessions Court vide its final order dated 8.11.2010 also held that the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate and further directed that in case no Succession Certificate is submitted within a period of one year, the seized property would be confiscated in favour of the Government. 4. The original applicant Mahadev Das died during pendency of Civil Suit No.26/2010 before the Succession Court and thereafter the Civil Suit was pursued by his legal heirs i.e. the applicants Bahura, Laladas, Deepakdas, Dineshdas, Sarojini & Rajni before the Succession Court. In the said Civil Suit, the non-applicants No.1 to 5 and 7 therein i.e. Afisar Das, Manager Das, Parvati, Bhurudas, Padumdas and Shanti Bai, supported the claim of the original applicant Mahadev Das for grant of Succession Certificate in his favour and relinquished their right over the seized property. However, on the objections raised by one Darasram before the Succession Court, he was impleaded as non-applicant No.8 in the said Civil Suit on his objection stating inter-alia that since the deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were issueless and he was looking after and taking care of them, they had jointly executed an unregistered Will in his favour on 15.4.2004 in respect of their movable and immovable properties and accordingly he is entitled for grant of Succession Certificate. 5. Learned Succession Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its order dated 14.12.2017 rejected the Civil Suit filed by the applicants Bahura & others under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 for grant of Succession Certificate and the objection raised by the non-applicant No.8 Darasram in the said Civil Suit, against which Darasram filed Civil Appeal No.2A/2018 and Bahura & others preferred Civil Appeal No.20A/2018 before the Appellate Court where both the said Civil Appeals were clubbed together for analogous hearing. 6. The Appellate Court, however, by its order dated 5.4.2018, dismissed the appeal filed by Bahura & others and has allowed the appeal filed by Darasram, holding that he is having the prima-facie best title by virtue of an unregistered Will executed in his favour on 15.4.2004 and accordingly granted the Succession Certificate in his favour. 7. Mr. 6. The Appellate Court, however, by its order dated 5.4.2018, dismissed the appeal filed by Bahura & others and has allowed the appeal filed by Darasram, holding that he is having the prima-facie best title by virtue of an unregistered Will executed in his favour on 15.4.2004 and accordingly granted the Succession Certificate in his favour. 7. Mr. Somnath Verma, learned counsel appearing for applicants Bahura & others, would submit that apart from claiming Succession Certificate on the basis of the applicants being the close relatives of deceased Narayan and Phool Bai, the said deceased persons were fufa and bua of the applicants. He vehemently submitted that by virtue of an unregistered Will, Succession Certificate could not have been granted in favour of non-applicant No.1 Darasram and prayed that both the civil revisions deserve to be allowed and Succession Certificate may be granted in favour of applicants Bahura & others, setting aside the Succession Certificate granted in favour of non-applicant No.1 Darasram. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for non-applicant No.1 Darasram, would support the judgment passed by the Appellate Court in his favour and, opposing the civil revisions, would submit that the Appellate Court has rightly held that Darasram is entitled for Succession Certificate having the prima-facie best title by virtue of the unregistered Will executed on 15.4.2004 in his favour and therefore both the Civil Revisions deserve to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsels for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Admittedly, deceased Narayan and Phool Bai were murdered and the police had seized movable property worth Rs.7,20,102/- and some silver & gold ornaments amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-approximately from their house. The Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No.93/2010 while deciding the said case had, vide its order dated 8.11.2010, held that as per the order of the Succession Court, the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate. The Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No.93/2010 while deciding the said case had, vide its order dated 8.11.2010, held that as per the order of the Succession Court, the seized property would be handed over to the person entitled on production of Succession Certificate. Meanwhile, during pendency of the succession case before the Succession Court, original applicant Mahadev Das died and therefore his legal heirs i.e. the applicants Bahura and others were substituted in the said succession case in which Darasram was also impleaded as non-applicant No.8 on the objections raised by him stating inter-alia that by virtue of an unregistered Will executed by the deceased persons in his favour on 15.4.2004, he is entitled for Succession Certificate in respect of their movable and immovable properties. However, the Succession Court could not find favour with the objections raised by Darasram and accordingly vide its order dated 14.12.2017 rejected the objection/claim raised by Darasram as well as the application filed by the applicants Bahura & others, leading to filing of two separate appeals before Appellate Court, i.e., one by Darasram and another by Bahura & others. However, the Appellate Court vide its common judgment dated 5.4.2018 while dismissing the appeal of Bahura & others, allowed the appeal filed by Darasram holding that on the basis of the unregistered Will Deed dated 15.4.2004, Darasram is entitled for Succession Certificate having prima-facie the best title over the movable and immovable properties of deceased Narayan and Phool Bai, against which the present two Civil Revisions have been preferred by Bahura & others. 11. Part X of the Act of 1925 deals with grant of Succession Certificates and in order to resolve the controversy, it would be appropriate to take note of Sections 373, 383(e) and 387 of the Act of 1925, which read as follows:- “373. 11. Part X of the Act of 1925 deals with grant of Succession Certificates and in order to resolve the controversy, it would be appropriate to take note of Sections 373, 383(e) and 387 of the Act of 1925, which read as follows:- “373. Procedure on application.—(1) If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the application, he shall fix a day for the hearing thereof and cause notice of the application and of the day fixed for the hearing— (a) to be served on any person to whom, in the opinion of the Judge, special notice of the application should be given, and (b) to be posted on some conspicuous part of the court-house and published in such other manner, if any, as the Judge, subject to any rules made by the High Court in this behalf, thinks fit, and upon the day fixed, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable, shall proceed to decide in a summary manner the right to the certificate. (2) When the Judge decides the right thereto to belong to the applicant, the Judge shall make an order for the grant of the certificate to him. (3) If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto. (4) When there are more applicants than one for a certificate, and it appears to the Judge that more than one of such applicants are interested in the estate of the deceased, the Judge may, in deciding to whom the certificate is to be granted, have regard to the extent of interest and the fitness in other respects of the applicants. XXX XXXXXX 383. Revocation of certificate.—A certificate granted under this Part may be revoked for any of the following causes, namely:— (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) that a decree or order made by a competent Court in a suit or other proceeding with respect to effects comprising debts or securities specified in the certificate renders it proper that the certificate should be revoked. XXX XXXXXX 387. XXX XXXXXX 387. Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder.— No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in any other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debt or security, or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto.” 12. Sub-Section (3) of Section 373 says that if the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima-facie the best title thereto. However, Sections 373, 383(e) & 387 would show that the proceedings for grant of Succession Certificate are summary in nature and no rights are finally decided in a summary proceeding. Section 387 already puts the matter beyond any doubt. It categorically provides that no decision under Part X upon any question of right between the parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or other proceeding between the same parties. Thus, Section 387 permits the filing of the suit in other proceeding even though Succession Certificate might have been granted. (See Joginder Pal v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors., 2000 (8) SCC 143 ) 13. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma & Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai & Ors., 2000 (6) SCC 301 , after having considered the provisions contained in Sections 370 to 390 of the Act of 1925 and Section 11 of C.P.C., has held that adjudication made under Part X of the Act of 1925 does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in any subsequent suit or proceeding. For ready reference, paragraphs 15, 16, & 17 of the said judgment are being reproduced herein under:- “15. This can be examined from another angle. The grant of Succession Certificate falls under Part X of the aforesaid Act. Its range is between Sections 370 to 390. For ready reference, paragraphs 15, 16, & 17 of the said judgment are being reproduced herein under:- “15. This can be examined from another angle. The grant of Succession Certificate falls under Part X of the aforesaid Act. Its range is between Sections 370 to 390. It is significant to refer here Section 387. This declares the effect of decisions made under this Act and the liability of holder of such certificate. It lays down that any decision made under this Part, (Part X) upon any question of right between the parties shall not bar the trial of the same question in any suit or other proceedings between the same parties. It further records that nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security to account therefore to the person lawfully entitled thereto. Section 387 is quoted hereunder: “387. Effect of decisions under this Act, and liability of holder of certificate thereunder:-No decision under this Part upon any question of right between any parties shall be held to bar the trial of the same question in any suit or in and other proceeding between the same parties, and nothing in this Part shall be construed to affect the liability of any person who may receive the whole or any part of any debts or security or any interest or dividend on any security, to account therefor to the person lawfully entitled thereto.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. This leaves no room for doubt. Thus any adjudication made under Part X of this Act which includes Section 373 does not bar the same question being raised between the same parties in any subsequent suit or proceeding. This provision takes the decisions under Part X of the Act outside the preview of Explanation VIII to Section 11. This gives protective umbrella to ward off from the rays of res judicata to the same issue being raised in subsequent suit or proceedings. 17. No doubt, Explanation VIII to Section 11 enlarges the field of res judicata, by including in its field the decisions on the same issue, between the same parties even by a court of limited jurisdiction even though such court may not have the competence of deciding such an issue in a suit. 17. No doubt, Explanation VIII to Section 11 enlarges the field of res judicata, by including in its field the decisions on the same issue, between the same parties even by a court of limited jurisdiction even though such court may not have the competence of deciding such an issue in a suit. But as we have held above this grant of Certificate would not fall within the field of Explanation VIII to Section 11.” 14. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down in the above-stated judgments and noticing the fact that the proceeding under Section 372 of the Act of 1925 is summary in nature and by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 373 of the said Act, if intricate questions of law and fact could not be determined in a summary proceeding, nevertheless the Succession Court can grant certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima-facie the best title thereto. The Succession Court did not invoke Section 384(3) of the said Act and did not find any of the applicants & objector prima-facie having the best title thereto and accordingly rejected the application, but the Appellate Court found that Darasram, the Objector, is the prima-facie best title holder of the movable property of two deceased persons and accordingly granted Succession Certificate in his favour, assigning three reasons:- (1) Firstly, that to prove the unregistered Will dated 15.4.2004 (Exhibit NA-1) on the basis of which Darasram claimed to be the successor of the deceased persons, the attesting witness Bisahu Satnami (AW-2) has been examined and the Will has been prima-facie proved by him, as the suspicious circumstances howsoever it be strong, the same cannot be determined in a summary proceeding under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. (2) Secondly, that in the Merg Intimation registered in the murder case of deceased Narayan and Phool Bai, it has been recorded that Darasram used to take care of the deceased persons and on 4.4.2010 he had brought food for them and that he himself had informed the police regarding the death of the deceased persons recorded in Merg Intimation of that criminal case. (3) Thirdly, that on the basis of Exhibits NA-2 to NA-7 brought on record by Darasram, it has been proved that in the immovable properties owned by the deceased persons, the name of Darasram has been mutated in the revenue records. As such, the said three reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Court to hold that Darasram is entitled for Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. 15. Now, I will examine the aforesaid three reasons assigned by the Appellate Court as to whether these three reasons would come into category of person, i.e., Darasram, in the instant case, who is having prima-facie the best title for grant of Succession Certificate. 16. First of all, I will take the second reason assigned by the Appellate Court that Darasram had himself reported to the police informing the murder of deceased Narayan and Phool Bai and in the Merg Intimation as also in the FIR (Exhibit P-4) it has been recorded that Darasram used to take care of the deceased persons, to hold that he is having prima-facie the best title thereto. This reason deserves to be rejected on the ground that the commission of cognizable offence can be reported by any person who come to know that a cognizable offence has been committed and the reporting of the cognizable offence by a person to the police would not confer any right over the property of the deceased. In addition, the ground that Darasram used to take care of the deceased persons and had brought food for them on the day on which they were murdered would also not confer any title upon Darasram to the property of deceased persons. 17. The next reason that has been assigned by the Appellate Court is that pursuant to the unregistered Will Deed dated 15.4.2004 (Exhibit NA-1), the immovable properties owned by the deceased persons have been recorded in the name of Darasram vide Exhibits NA-2 to NA-7 to show the prima-facie title in favour of Darasram. It is the well settled law that mutation entry in the revenue records does not confer any right, title and interest over the property in whose name it is recorded in the revenue records. It is the well settled law that mutation entry in the revenue records does not confer any right, title and interest over the property in whose name it is recorded in the revenue records. It is only for the purpose of collecting revenues and keeping the records up-to-date, and certainly mutation would not confer any semblance of right, title and interest in favour of the person in whose name the immovable property is recorded. The Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR v. Arthur Import and Export Company, AIR 2019 SC 719 has held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. 18. The final finding that has been recorded by the Appellate Court is that the unregistered Will Deed dated 15.4.2004 has been executed in favour of Darasram and the attesting witness Bisahu Satnami (AW-2) has been examined to prove the same. However, the suspicious circumstances, which have been sought to be brought on record by the opposite side and accepted by the Succession Court, have not been considered by the Appellate Court holding that it is a mixed question of law and fact and it could not be gone into in a summary proceeding under Section 372 read with Section 373 of the Act of 1925 and proceeded to grant Succession Certificate in favour of Darasram. 19. The question would be, whether the Appellate Court is justified in granting Succession Certificate in favour of Darasram holding that by virtue of an unregistered Will dated 15.4.2004 the mutation of land has been made in favour Darasram and that Darasram is entitled for Succession Certificate under Section 373 of the Act of 1925 having prima-facie the best title thereto. It is an admitted position on record that vide Exhibits NA-2 to NA-7, the properties owned by deceased Narayan and Phool Bai have been mutated in the name of Darasram by virtue of unregistered Will dated 15.4.2004, on 9.1.2015. As such, by virtue of an unregistered Will, the immovable properties owned by the deceased persons have been mutated in the name of Darasram. 20. As such, by virtue of an unregistered Will, the immovable properties owned by the deceased persons have been mutated in the name of Darasram. 20. Learned Appellate Court only held that since the immovable properties have been mutated in the name of Darasram and the attesting witness Bisahu Satnami (AW-2) has been examined to prove the same in accordance with Section 63 of the Act of 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the Succession Court ought to have issued Succession Certificate in favour of Darasram. However, the Appellate Court declined to consider the correctness of the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Succession Court in its order from paragraphs 24 to 31 holding that such suspicious circumstances in the Will, if any, are mixed questions of law and fact and that cannot be adjudicated upon in a summary proceeding under Section 372 of the Act of 1925. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Appellant Court are being reproduced below:- **32- ;|fi lk{kh fclkgw lrukeh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ukjk;.k flag] QwyckbZ ,oa njljke vyx&vyx tkfr ds gSa vkSj mudk [kkuk&ihuk Hkh vyx&vyx gksrk gS] ysfdu tgka rd olh;r izn'kZ ,u0,0&1 dk iz'u gS] rks vuqizek.ku lk{kh gksus dh gSfl;r ls vukosnd dzekad&8 ds lk{kh dzekad&2 fclkgw lrukeh us olh;rukek izn'kZ ,u0,0&1 ds lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&68 o Hkkjrh; mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&63 ds rgr izekf.kr fd;k gS vr% fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izn'kZ ,u0,0&1 dh olh;r ds vk/kkj ij vukosnd Øekad&8 ds i{k esa mŸkjkf/kdkj izek.ki= tkjh djuk pkfg;s FkkA 33- tgka rd vukosnd Ø0&8 njljke }kjk izLrqr olh;r iz0,u0,0&1 ds laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns'k dh dafMdk 24 ls 31 esa mYysf[kr dh xbZ ^^lansgkLin ifjfLFkfr;ksa^^ dk laca/k gS] rks mYysf[kr dh xbZ lansgkLin ifjfLFkfr;ksa vkSj olh;r ds izekf.kdj.k ,oa mlls lacaf/kr vU; iz'u rF; ,oa fof/k ds ,sls iz'u gSa] ftldk vo/kkj.k laf{kIr tkap ds rgr~ ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa lDls'ku izek.k i= iznku djus okys U;k;ky; dks dsoy izFke n`"V;k ;g ns[kuk Fkk fd olh;r dks vuqizek.ku lk{kh ds ek/;e ls izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS ;k ugha fd;k x;k gSA tks fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fujkd`r izdj.k esa ugha fd;k x;k gSA^^ 21. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant decision of the Supreme Court recently pronounced in the matter of Meena Pradhan & Ors. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant decision of the Supreme Court recently pronounced in the matter of Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr., 2023 INSC 847 in which the formalities required under Section 63 of the Act of 1925 to prove the Will have been succinctly laid down by their Lordships, as under:- "10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3 -Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3-Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91 (2-Judge Bench), Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3-- Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3-Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will: i. xxx xxx xxx ii. xxx xxx xxx iii. A Will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say: (a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will; (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary; (c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have 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 acknowledgment of such signatures; (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required; XXX XXXXXX 11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances." 22. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances." 22. Bearing in mind the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Pradhan (supra) for proving the execution and attestation of the Will, it is quite vivid that though Succession Court did not accept the Will finding it to be surrounded with suspicious circumstances in paragraphs 24 to 31 of its order, but the Appellate Court did not consider the correctness of that finding recorded by the Succession Court qua suspicious circumstance of the Will by holding that since Darasram's name has been mutated in the revenue records on the basis of unregistered Will and one of the attesting witnesses i.e. Bisahu Satnami (AW-2) has been examined to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will and therefore Darasram is entitled for Succession Certificate holding him to be a person having prima-facie the best title to the amount in question entitling him for the Succession Certificate. 23. Section 373(3) of the Act of 1925 employs implies the words that "If the Judge cannot decide the right to the certificate without determining questions of law or fact which seem to be too intricate and difficult for determination in a summary proceeding, he may nevertheless grant a certificate to the applicant if he appears to be the person having prima facie the best title thereto". The words "prima facie the best title thereto" have not been defined in the Act of 1925. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "prima facie" case means - in sense of plaintiff producing evidence sufficient to render reasonable conclusion in favour of allegation he asserts; this means plaintiff's evidence is sufficient to allow his case to go to jury. The term "prima facie" means - at first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it. A litigating party is said to have prima facie conclusive evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. 24. The term "prima facie" means - at first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it. A litigating party is said to have prima facie conclusive evidence in his favour is sufficiently strong for his opponent to be called on to answer it. 24. In my considered opinion, the Appellate Court is not right in granting Succession Certificate in favour Darasram by recording finding that the immovable properties owned by deceased Narayan and Phool Bai have been mutated in the name of Darasram on the basis of unregistered Will dated 15.4.2004 and further that Darasram himself reported the matter to the police vide Merg Intimation qua the murder of Narayan and Phool Bai by which the wheels of investigation started running in the murder case of Narayan and Phool Bai and further holding that by examining one of the attesting witnesses i.e., Bisahu Satnami (AW-2), due execution and attestation of Will has been proved ignoring the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Succession Court, addressing it by holding that due execution and attestation has been proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Evidence Act as well as Section 63 of the Act of 1925, in opinion of this Court, Darasram cannot be held to be having prima-facie the best title thereto on the basis of mutation entry of the immovable properties owned by deceased Narayan and Phool Bai and furthermore since due execution and attestation of the Will has not been proved, the suspicious circumstances pointed out by the Succession Court have not been reversed by the Appellate Court, yet Succession Certificate has been granted by the Appellate Court. As such, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned judgment directing grant of Succession Certificate in favour of Darasram. However, so far as the case of Bahura and others is concerned, the Appellate Court is justified in dismissing their appeal. 25. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2018 passed by the Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.2A/2018 granting Succession Certificate in favour of the non-applicant No.1 Darasram, is hereby set-aside. However, the impugned judgment so far as the applicants Bahura & others are concerned, stands affirmed holding that they are also not entitled for Succession Certificate as has been rightly held by the two Courts below in their concurrent findings. However, the impugned judgment so far as the applicants Bahura & others are concerned, stands affirmed holding that they are also not entitled for Succession Certificate as has been rightly held by the two Courts below in their concurrent findings. Parties, however, would be at liberty to establish their right in accordance with law before the jurisdictional Civil Court in the light of Section 387 of the Succession Act. 26. As a consequence, Civil Revision No.87/2018 is dismissed and Civil Revision No.70/2018 stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost(s).