JUDGMENT : 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendants 1, 3 & 4 in a suit for partition. 2. The respondents 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs in the suit. During the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal, the 3rd respondent/3rd plaintiff died, and his legal representatives are impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 10 as per order dated 19.12.2022 in I.A.No.3/2019. 3. The parties are referred according to their status before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of plaint A & B schedule properties belonged to Pappu Achari Narayanan Achari in equal shares of 1/9 each among the plaintiffs (7Nos) and the defendants 1 & 2, who are the children of Narayanan Achari who died on 16.11.1998 claiming that the plaint schedule properties belonged to Narayanan Achari as per Ext.A1 Deed; and that wife of Narayanan Achari predeceased Narayanan Achari. 5. According to the plaintiffs, both plaint A & B schedule properties are lying as a single compact plot; that Narayanan Achari and the first plaintiff constructed a house in the plaint schedule properties utilizing their funds; the plaint A schedule property has an extent of 4 cents with a building therein. Plaint B schedule property is a property having an extent of 7.800 cents of land and the building therein. 6. There is no dispute among the parties to the suit regarding the status of the parties as children of Narayanan Achari, the death of Narayanan Achari and his wife, and the title of Narayanan Achari over the plaint schedule properties. 7. 6. There is no dispute among the parties to the suit regarding the status of the parties as children of Narayanan Achari, the death of Narayanan Achari and his wife, and the title of Narayanan Achari over the plaint schedule properties. 7. The defendants opposed the suit claim by filing Written Statement that Narayana Achari had executed Ext.X2 Will (Ext.B2 is the certified copy) on 28.06.1995 with regard to the plaint schedule properties and it was kept with the District Registrar, Kollam and after his death, the said Will was registered as Will No.126/1998 of SRO Kollam; that the said Will came into force; that as per the said Will, Plaintiffs 4, 6 & 7, who are female children, are not having any right over the plaint schedule properties, Plaint A schedule property is allotted to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 and the defendants 1 & 2 and Plaint B schedule property and the building therein were allotted to the share of defendants 1 & 2; that the defendants have effected mutation with respect to the plaint B schedule property and it is in the joint possession of the defendants and they are residing there with family members; that Plaint A and B Schedule Properties are separated by definite boundaries and survey stones; that plaint A schedule property is in joint possession of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 & 5 and the defendants; that plaint A schedule property alone is partible and it is to be partitioned into 6 equal shares and each of the shares is to be allotted to plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and the defendants 1 & 2. They raised a Counter Claim for partition of plaint A schedule property into 6 equal shares by allotting 1/6 share each to plaintiffs 1 to 3, 5 and defendants 1 & 2, for a declaration that the building in plaint B schedule property and trees therein are owned by the defendants, for eviction of the 5th plaintiff from the residential house in Plaint B schedule property and for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from entering into plaint B schedule property and from committing waste therein. 8. 8. The plaintiffs filed Written Statement to the Counter Claim denying the execution of the Will alleged to have been executed by Narayanan Achari, citing the improbability of the execution of the Will contending that there was no need of circumstances for executing such a will; alleging undue influence, coercion and fraud in the execution of the Will contending that Narayanan Achari was in the control of defendants 1 and 2 since the year 1991; that Narayanan Achari was fully dependent on the defendants during the year 1995; that he had mental diseases; that he was mentally and physically incapable and hence there is no chance of executing a Will by himself; and challenging the testamentary capacity of Narayanan Achari contending that Narayanan Achari was not mentally or physically capable to execute the said will; that the eye sight and memory of Narayanan Achari were low from the age of 75 years; that Narayan Achari was unable to do the day today activities without support of any person; that Narayanan Achari was not able to execute a Will by himself on account of his low eye sight and other diseases; that Narayanan Achari did not have education and was illiterate and hence he was unable to read and understand the contents of the will created by the defendants 1 and 2 by fraud; that the said Will was created falsely and fraudulently by the defendants 1 and 2 by way an of an experiment to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs; that the sign and fingerprint on the Will are forged and it do not belong to Narayanan Achari; that he was taken for treatment by the defendants; that it is reliably learnt that defendants have obtained fingerprint and sign of Narayanan Achari; that the signature of Narayanan Achari was known to the defendants; that the signature of the witnesses in the Will are forged and there are no such persons; that Narayanan Achari had not shown any discrimination among his children and he wanted to divide his properties among his children equally; nothing is paid to the plaintiffs 4, 6 and 7 towards their share apart from marrying them off and that the said Will NO. 126/1995 is liable to be ignored treating the same as void. 9. 126/1995 is liable to be ignored treating the same as void. 9. Initially, the 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1, the Mason who constructed the house in the plaint schedule property was examined as PW2 to prove that it was constructed by the 1st plaintiff, a neighbour of Narayanan Achari was examined PW3 to prove that Narayanan Achari didn’t have testamentary capacity and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the Plaintiff. Ext.A1 is the original title deed of the plaint schedule properties in favour of Narayanan Achari produced by the plaintiffs. From the side of the defendants, the 1st defendant was examined as DW4, and the then District Registrar and the Sub Registrar were examined as DW1 and DW2. DW3 was examined as an Attesting Witness to the Will. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked from the side of the Plaintiff. Ext.B2 is the certified copy of the Will No126/1998 of SRO, Kollam. Exts.B1,B3, B4 & B5 are the copies of the Plaint, Written Statement, Judgment, and Decree of O.S.No.199/1995 filed by Plaintiff No.5 against Narayanan Achari and the defendants 1& 2 before the Principal Sub Court, Kollam. O.S.No.199/1995 was a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining eviction of the 5th plaintiff from the very same plaint schedule properties herein and restraining alienation of the same by Narayanan Achari on the claim that Narayanan Achari had orally agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the 5th plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and he had received an advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. 10. As per judgment dated 22.08.2005 the Trial Court decreed the suit finding that Will No. 126/1998 has not come into existence and that the plaint schedule properties are liable to partition into nine equal shares to be distributed among the parties to the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.3/2006 before the First Appellate Court challenging the said judgment and decree. Defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S.No.3/2006 before the First Appellate Court challenging the said judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court found that when DW3 Attesting Witness was examined, the Original of Ext.B2 Will was not there; that after the closure of the evidence and hearing, the Trial Court issued Notice to the District Registrar for production of the original will along with the sealed cover and after perusing the same on production concluded that what is deposed by DW3 is false; and that it was not proper for the Trial Court to conclude that DW3 was telling falsehood without examining him showing the Will. It is also observed that the Trial Court did not require copies of Book No.5 of the Registering Authority to see whether there is compliance with Section 43 of the Registration Act and that the Trial Court was bound to examine whether proceedings required under S.45 of the Registration Act was complied with or not. On account of these reasons, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, as per its judgment dated 10.02.2010. 11. After remand, the 2nd defendant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional defendants No.3 and 4. They filed a Memo adopting the contentions in the Written Statement filed by defendants 1 and 2. 12. After remand, on summons DW5, the then District Registrar, Kollam produced Ext.X1 Book No.5, Ext.X2 Will and Ext.X3 Envelop and gave oral evidence. Page No.34 of Ext.X1 was marked as Ext.X1(a). Thereafter DW3 was recalled and examined further. DW6, the then Sub Registrar, Kollam was examined and she produced Ext.X4 Registration Book. Pages 93 to 97 of Ext.X4 were marked as Exts.X4(a) to (e). Dw7 was examined as the Scribe of Ext.X2 Will. 13. Page No.34 of Ext.X1 was marked as Ext.X1(a). Thereafter DW3 was recalled and examined further. DW6, the then Sub Registrar, Kollam was examined and she produced Ext.X4 Registration Book. Pages 93 to 97 of Ext.X4 were marked as Exts.X4(a) to (e). Dw7 was examined as the Scribe of Ext.X2 Will. 13. As per judgment dt 11.10.2010 the Trial court decreed the suit with cost and dismissed the Counterclaim, restraining the defendants from creating any document in respect of the plaint schedule properties, from alienating the same to strangers and from cutting the trees therein and from committing any waste therein and passing a Preliminary Decree ordering that plaint A and B schedule properties are liable to be partitioned into 9 equal shares and the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/9 share each; that the residential building in plaint schedule property is not partible and it has to be allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff. 14. Defendants 1,3 and 4 filed A.S.No.324/2010 before the First Appellate Court and the same was dismissed by judgment dt 24.06.2014 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court. 15. This Court admitted the above Regular Second Appeal framing the following substantial questions of law; i. Whether the findings regarding the proof of Will are perverse and contrary to the pleadings and evidence in the case? ii. Whether the evidence of the scribe and one of the attesting witnesses coupled with the adoption of a sealed cover procedure under Section 42 of the Registration Act is sufficient to prove the due execution and attestation of the disputed Will? iii. When DW1 and DW5, the District Registrars, produced the original Will, envelope, and Book No.5 and proved the requirements under Section 42 of the Registration Act, whether such proof is to be taken to corroborate the due execution of the Will? iv. When DW2 and DW6, the Sub Registrars, produced Book No.3 in which the Will was entered into after opening the same, whether a presumption as to the validity and genuineness of the Will have to be drawn? v. Whether the courts below were justified in holding that non-mentioning of the execution of the Will in the written statement of the testator in another suit is fatal to the genuineness of the Will, especially when he adopted the sealed cover procedure? 16. v. Whether the courts below were justified in holding that non-mentioning of the execution of the Will in the written statement of the testator in another suit is fatal to the genuineness of the Will, especially when he adopted the sealed cover procedure? 16. In view of the contentions of the parties during the hearing, an Additional Substantial Question of law is formulated as follows. vi. Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in granting exclusive right over the building in the Plaint schedule Property to the plaintiff No.1 in the absence of any prayer for the same? 17. I heard Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant Sri.S.Sreekumar instructed by Adv. Sri Martin Jose and Learned Counsel for the respondents Sri. S Santhosh Kumar. 18. The questions that need consideration in this appeal is whether Ext.X2 Will has been proved to be executed by Narayanan Achari and if the same is executed by Narayanan Achari, whether he had executed the Will out of his free will when he was having sound testamentary capacity. 19. If Ext.X2 is legally valid, the plaint schedule properties have to be partitioned as per the terms of the Ext.X2 allowing the Counter Claim. If Ext.X2 is not legally valid the plaint schedule properties are to be partitioned into nine equal shares allotting each share to plaintiffs 1 to 7 and defendants 1 and 2 allowing the suit. 20. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the defendants have sufficiently proved Ext.X2 by examining one of the attesting witnesses as required under the law. There is no suspicious circumstance with respect to the execution of Ext.X2 Will as the same was deposited with the District Registrar in a sealed cover as permitted under S.42 of the Registration Act; that after the death of Narayanan Achari the said will was opened and the same was duly registered in accordance with law as document No. 126/1998 of SRO, Kollam. The evidence of DW1 and DW5 District Registrars and the evidence of DW2 and DW6 Sub Registrars clearly prove the deposit of the will, opening of the same, and registration of the same. According to him the inconsistency in the evidence of DW3/Attesting Witness is not material and the same happened only on account of the non-production of Ext.X2 Original Will while he was examined on 04.07.2005. According to him the inconsistency in the evidence of DW3/Attesting Witness is not material and the same happened only on account of the non-production of Ext.X2 Original Will while he was examined on 04.07.2005. When DW3 was again examined on 29.09.2010 he clearly identified his signatures in Ext.X2 Original Will and correctly deposed the details with respect to the execution of Ext.X2 will. There is no inconsistency in material points between the evidence of DW3 and DW7. When a party alleges an element to vitiate the document, the burden is on that party to prove the same. The Plaintiffs have not discharged their burden to prove fraud, coercion, and undue influence alleged by him. The proceedings in O.S No.199/1995 proved by Exts.B1, B3, B4, B5 and B6 are the one contemporaneous to Ext.X2 Will and the 5th plaintiff had no dispute with respect to the mental capacity of Narayanan Achari in the said proceedings. 21. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpavati and others v. Chandraja Kadamba and others 1972 SC 2492, Umadevi Nambiar v. Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321 and the decisions of this Court in Kallangadi Edathil Chathan Veettil Kumaran Kidavu and another v. Niduvanchalil Keloth Damodaran Nair and others 2013(2) KHC 191 , Madhavi (died), L.Rs impleaded v.Bhagyam w/o. Raghavan 2022 KHC 5728, Premakumari R v. O. K Sivasankara Pillai (Died) 2024 KHC 5 in support of his contentions. 22. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents argued that the execution of the will was not properly proved by the defendants and there is material contradiction in the evidence of DW 3 and DW7. The evidence of DW3, who is the only attesting witness examined, is full of contradictions and the same could not be relied on. The proof of deposit of Ext.X2 Will with the District Registrar and subsequent registration on the opening of the Will would not dispense the burden of the propounders to prove the Will in accordance with law. The non examination of the District Registrar who accepted the deposit of the Will is fatal to the case of the defendants. The proof of deposit of Ext.X2 Will with the District Registrar and subsequent registration on the opening of the Will would not dispense the burden of the propounders to prove the Will in accordance with law. The non examination of the District Registrar who accepted the deposit of the Will is fatal to the case of the defendants. At any rate, the defendants ought to have adduced expert evidence to prove the signatures and thumb impression of Narayanan Achari, when the defendants have taken a specific plea in the Written Statement that it does not belong to Narayanan Achari. The defendants have not adduced any proof that Narayanan Achari had testamentary capacity during the time when Ext.X2 was executed. Admittedly, Narayanan Achari had been residing with the 1st defendant during his old age while he was having so many diseases and in such case the probability of undue influence on him to execute Ext.X2 is apparent. The defendants have not adduced any reason for Narayanan Achari to disturb the natural inheritance of his properties. The absence of the seal of the Registrar on Ext.X3 envelope causes serious doubt as to the deposit of Ext.X3 envelope as the Registrar being a statutory authority has to affix the seal when he subscribes his official signature. 23. The Counsel for the respondents cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini and others (2009) 1 SCC 354 , Kavita KanwarV.Pamela Mehta and others AIR 2020 SC 2614 , Raj Kumari and others v. Surinder Pal Sharma (2021) 14 SCC 500 and DhaniRam (died) through Lrs and Others V.Shiv Singh AIR 2023 SC 4787 . 24. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and Others ( AIR 1964 SC 529 ) succinctly indicated the position in law with respect to proof of will as follows: "The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by S.63, Succession Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the Will as genuine. Where the Caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable, or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the Will which confers a substantial benefit on him that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations." 25. It is a settled law that in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator on the Will alone are sufficient to discharge the onus on the part of the Propounder of the Will. Where there are suspicious circumstances, it is for the Propounder to explain it to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. In such case, the Propounder has to adduce trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. 26. Where there are suspicious circumstances, it is for the Propounder to explain it to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. In such case, the Propounder has to adduce trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the Will. 26. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpavati’s case (Supra) and argued that in the absence of any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus which is placed upon the propounder of the will. He argued that when Ext.X2 Will is produced from a proper custody there is nothing to be doubted about the genuineness of the said Will. 27. In Pushpavati’s case (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the position with respect to proof of Will in the following words. 5. The position in law is no longer in doubt. It is for the propounder of the Will to prove it, and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient, to discharge the onus which is placed upon the propounder of the Will. Where there are suspicious circumstances the propounder of the Will has to explain them away to the satisfaction of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would have to give effect to the Will even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. See; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 . 6. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would have to give effect to the Will even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. See; Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 . 6. Where the signature of the testator is challenged as a forged signature and the Will does not come from the custody of a public authority or a family Solicitor the fact that the dispositions made in the Will were unnatural, improbable or unfair, would undoubtedly create some doubt about the Will, especially, when the document is unregistered and comes from the custody of a person who is the major beneficiary under the Will. 28. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi Nambiar’ case (Supra) and argued that depriving of shares to some of the legal heirs is not a ground to doubt the genuineness of the will. According to him if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court has to give effect to the will even if the will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs there is no necessity at all of executing a will. A will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of the natural heirs. 29. It is quite apposite to extract Paragraph No.15 in Umadevi Nambiar’ case (Supra) 15. A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture, or mistrust. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture, or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in PPK Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar and Others (JT 1995 (5) SC 163). It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane, and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstance, the court has to give effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations (See Puspavati and Others v. Chandraja Kadamba and Others ( AIR 1972 SC 2492 )). In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by LRs. and Others ( 1995 (4) SCC 459 ). it was observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and, in some cases, partly. 30. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the recent decision of this Court in Premakumari R’s case (supra) in which the learned Single Judge of this Court has elaborately considered various aspects of execution and proof of Wills with reference to the several Supreme Court decisions of the point. This Court entered a finding that when a party challenging the Will contends that the Will is a product of fraud, undue influence, and coercion, the allegations of fraud, undue influence, and coercion must be set forth in full particulars and not vaguely. This Court entered a finding that when a party challenging the Will contends that the Will is a product of fraud, undue influence, and coercion, the allegations of fraud, undue influence, and coercion must be set forth in full particulars and not vaguely. When allegations are made in a vague and sweeping manner the Court cannot act on them for lack of specific pleadings even if the allegations are worded in very assertive language. 31. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the decision of this Court in Madhavi’ Case (supra) and argued that minor contradictions in the evidence of the Attesting Witness are not material and the evidence of Attesting Witness is to be read as a whole while considering the proof of execution of Will. In that case, after going through the evidence of Attesting Witness this Court arrived at the following findings. 8. Now coming to the evidence of PW2 - the witness to Ext.A3 Will, it is to be borne in mind that, the witnesses to execution were themselves the identifying witnesses for registration. Therefore, the witnesses had signed at the time of execution of the Will and also at the time of registration of the Will though in different capacities. A reading of the evidence of PW2 would show that he has mixed himself up, or confused himself, with regard to the sequence in which the testator and the witnesses had signed, and also the place at which the Will was signed namely, whether it was at the office of the scribe or at the Sub Registry Office. 32. It is apposite to mention the background of the said case stated in Paragraph No.7 of the said decision. 7. Before I proceed to discuss on the evidence of PW2, it would be relevant to refer to the background or the circumstances that prevailed at the time of execution of Ext.A3 Will. The testator Balakrishnan V. was aged 86 years. He was being taken care of by his wife - the plaintiff. His daughter, the defendant, had not attended to his needs nor did she care about the welfare of her father. This is admitted by the defendant as DW2, in her cross - examination. The defendant was gifted other properties by the father. He was being taken care of by his wife - the plaintiff. His daughter, the defendant, had not attended to his needs nor did she care about the welfare of her father. This is admitted by the defendant as DW2, in her cross - examination. The defendant was gifted other properties by the father. Seeking to get possession of the property from her father in respect of the property covered under the gift, she filed a suit against her father as OS 208/1992. The suit was decreed on 14.11.1996. Exts.A14 and A15 are the decree and judgment respectively, in the suit. The sons of the testator were given other properties under Ext.A1 partition deed of the year 1996. It was in the said background that Ext.A3 Will was executed by Balakrishnan. There is no case nor evidence that any property was given to the plaintiff other than that covered under the Will. The above circumstances are of significance while considering the genuineness of Ext.A3 Will. The circumstances would probabilize the execution of a Will by V.Balakrishnan in favour of the plaintiff. 33. It is clear from the said decision that this Court entered such a finding taking note of the facts of the said case extracted above. It is not proper to import the said principle into the facts and circumstances of the present case. In every case, there would be contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. It is for the Court to consider whether such contradictions are material to not taking into account the pleadings in the case and facts and circumstances of each case. 34. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant cited the decision of this Court in Kallangadi Edathil Chathan Veettil Kumaran Kidavu’s case (supra) to support his contention that the absence of seal on Ext.X3 envelope is not material to doubt the deposit of sealed cover. With reference to S.42 to S.46 of the Registration Act, this Court held in the decision that there is no prescription that the Registrar should initial on the outer side of the sealed envelope in which Will is enclosed for deposit nor of affixing the seal of the Registrar on such envelope. 35. With reference to S.42 to S.46 of the Registration Act, this Court held in the decision that there is no prescription that the Registrar should initial on the outer side of the sealed envelope in which Will is enclosed for deposit nor of affixing the seal of the Registrar on such envelope. 35. The Counsel for the respondents cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Laxmanan’s case (supra) and argued that when there are suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of Will, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court and only when such responsibilities are discharged, the court would accept the Will as genuine and that even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubt, it is on the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. 36. The learned counsel for the respondent cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavitha Kanwar’s case (supra) and argued that unfair dispossession of property or unjust exclusion of legal heirs is to be regarded as a suspicious circumstance. The learned counsel for the respondent cited the decision in Raj Kumari’s case (supra) in which it is held that the suspicion generated by disinheritance is not removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the Will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind when the Will disinherits those like the wife and children of the testator who would have normally received their due share in the estate. I am of the view that this is not an absolute rule, it is a matter to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each. When the Will is executed after providing sufficient provision for near relations, the genuineness of the Will could not be doubted. Likewise, if the testator had been dependent on a legal heir during his old age and such legal heir had been providing all assistance to him and if such legal heir is excluded from inheritance for no reason, it is a strong suspicious circumstance to doubt the genuineness of Will. If more share is given to such legal heir, it is a normal circumstance. 37. If more share is given to such legal heir, it is a normal circumstance. 37. The learned Counsel for the respondent cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhani Ram’s case (supra) and in which it was held that it is well settled that mere registration would not satisfy a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness. 38. In view of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions cited by either side, let me answer the issues involved in the present case. 39. The first point to be considered is whether there is any suspicious circumstance with respect to Ext.X2 Will. Ext.X2 Will is dated 28/06/1995. Narayanan Achari died on 16/11/1998. Ext.X2 is claimed to have been prepared by DW7 Scribe. DW7 deposed that Narayanan Achari brought the original Title Deeds and that the Title Deeds were Sale Deed with respect to 7 cents and Patta with respect to 4 cents. Ext.A1 would show that it covers both of these properties. In Ext.B3 Written Statement it is admitted that Ext.A1 is in the possession of the 5th plaintiff though it is alleged that it is stolen by him. The original of Ext.A1 is produced in this suit by the plaintiffs. So the evidence of DW7 that he had seen the Title Deeds is not correct. If a Will is prepared by a Scribe, in the normal course he would include the derivation of the title of the testator in the Will, but in Ext.X2 the same is absent. But the Thandapper Number of the property is specifically stated. It creates doubt that if it was created by a person who did not have full details of the plant schedule property. That apart, there is a visible difference in the signatures of Narayanan Achari in Ext.X2 Will & Ext.X3 Cover when compared to his signatures in Ext.B3 Written Statement which is a contemporaneous document. Nothing about Ext.X2 Will is stated in Ext.B3 Written Statement. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that if Ext.X2 Will is disclosed in Ext.B3 Written Statement, the very purpose of depositing the Will with the Registrar to keep it secret, would be defeated and that must be the reason for the testator not to disclose Ext.X2 Will in Ext.B3 Written Statement. 40. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that if Ext.X2 Will is disclosed in Ext.B3 Written Statement, the very purpose of depositing the Will with the Registrar to keep it secret, would be defeated and that must be the reason for the testator not to disclose Ext.X2 Will in Ext.B3 Written Statement. 40. It is true that the purpose behind S.42 of the Registration Act is to enable the testators, who do not want to make the execution of the Will known to others by registration of the same, to execute the Will and deposit the same with the Registrar for registration after his death, so that it would have the benefit of secrecy and the sanctity of registration. When the Will is executed and registered simultaneously, the registration process would contain the sign and thumb impression of the testator made in the presence of Registration authorities and in such event, the inclination of the Courts is always to find in favour of the Propounder if the statutory requirement of proof of the Will is satisfied by him by examining at least one attesting witness as required under S.68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Proviso to S.68 would make it abundantly clear that the general rule of proof of registered documents is not applicable to Will and it is mandatory to examine the attesting witness in the case of Will. Here there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of DW1 and DW5 District Registrars who brought the official documents to prove the deposit of X3 cover containing Ext.X2 Will and its opening after the death of the Registrar. Likewise, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of DW2 and DW6 Sub Registrars who brought the official documents relating to the registration of Ext.X2 Will. The evidence of DW1 and DW5 District Registrars and Exts.X1, X1(a), X1(b), and Ext.X3 would amply prove that all legal procedures with respect to deposit of Ext.X3 Cover and opening of the same are done. The evidence of DW2 and DW6 Sub Registrars and Exts.X4(a) and X4 series would amply prove that all legal procedures with respect to the registration of Ext.X2 are done. But that would not absolve the Propounder from the onus to prove execution of Ext.X2 Will. The evidence of DW2 and DW6 Sub Registrars and Exts.X4(a) and X4 series would amply prove that all legal procedures with respect to the registration of Ext.X2 are done. But that would not absolve the Propounder from the onus to prove execution of Ext.X2 Will. The normal rule is that registration of the Will, will not absolve the Propounder from the onus to prove execution of the Will in accordance with law. This onus is more in the case of Will deposited under S.42, when compared to the Will registered simultaneously with execution. When Will is executed and deposited under S.42, the registration takes place only at a later point of time after the death of the testator and without the involvement of the testator and hence registration is not at all a relevant factor for the purpose of proving the execution of the will. It may not be possible to misuse the provision under S.42 by impersonation during the present day on account of the availability of various documents to ensure the identity of the person depositing the Will. But that was not the situation during the period when Ext.X2 Will was deposited. The chances for impersonation could not be ruled out. There were every chance of the provision for the deposit of Will being misused during those times, especially by persons who created Will fraudulently want to see that the Will is kept secret during the lifetime of the testator. Whether the defendants are the persons behind the execution of the will and whether they wanted to keep it as a secret is not known. That might be the reason for not disclosing about Ext.X2 in Ext.B3 Written statement. It is to be noted that the Will was executed and deposited soon after the institution of O.S.No.199/1995 by the 5th plaintiff. The adoption of sealed cover procedure under Section 42 of the Registration Act is not sufficient to prove the due execution and attestation of the disputed Will. The Evidence of DW1 and DW5, the District Registrars, who produced the original Will, envelope, and Book No.5 and proved the requirements under Section 42 of the Registration Act is not to be taken to corroborate the due execution of the Will. The Evidence of DW1 and DW5, the District Registrars, who produced the original Will, envelope, and Book No.5 and proved the requirements under Section 42 of the Registration Act is not to be taken to corroborate the due execution of the Will. A presumption as to the validity and genuineness of the Will could not be drawn on the basis of the evidence of DW2 and DW6, the Sub Registrars who produced Book No.3 in which the Will was entered into after registration on opening the same. Hence, I am of the view that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ext.X2 Will. 41. Regarding the testamentary capacity of the testator- Narayanan Achari, the plaintiffs have strongly disputed the testamentary capacity of the testator at the time of execution of Ext.X2 Will. As rightly contended by the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the proceedings in O.S.No.199/1995 instituted by the 5th plaintiff are contemporaneous proceedings. In the said proceedings Narayanan Achari is the 1st defendant in his personal capacity. He filed Ext.B3 Written Statement along with other defendants. The 5th plaintiff did not raise any objection with respect to the mental capacity of Narayanan Achari. In Ext.B1 Plaint in O.S.No.199/1995 filed by the 5th plaintiff the specific averment is that there was a mutual oral agreement between the 5th plaintiff and Narayanan Achari on 25/01/1995. In view of the said averment, the plaintiffs could not contend that Narayanan Achari did not have testamentary capacity. Hence, I find that Narayanan Achari had sufficient testamentary capacity during the period when Ext.X1 was executed. 42. The plaintiffs have contended that Ext.X2 is vitiated by fraud, undue influence, and coercion. Though the plaintiffs alleged fraud, undue influence, and coercion, the material details with respect to those vitiating elements are absent in the pleadings. When a Party alleges fraud, undue influence, and coercion, he has to state the material details as to how they are committed. Without those materials, the Court is not bound to consider the contentions with respect to fraud, undue influence, and coercion. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs in this regard. Hence the contention of the plaintiffs alleging fraud, undue influence, and coercion is unsustainable. 43. In view of the above discussion, the defendants are liable to discharge their burden to remove the suspicion surrounding the execution of Ext.X2 Will, without depending on the sealed cover procedure and registration. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs in this regard. Hence the contention of the plaintiffs alleging fraud, undue influence, and coercion is unsustainable. 43. In view of the above discussion, the defendants are liable to discharge their burden to remove the suspicion surrounding the execution of Ext.X2 Will, without depending on the sealed cover procedure and registration. 44. The Counsel for the appellant contended that the contentions of the plaintiff were contradictory in the Written Statement filed by them to the Counter Claim. Though they denied the execution of Ext.X2 Will, in view of their contention that Ext.X2 is vitiated by fraud, undue influence, and coercion, the execution of Ext.X2 Will is deemed to have been accepted by them. The Counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiffs have taken all the defences available to them against Ext.X2 and it could not be said that the defences are contradictory. Here is a case where the plaintiff did not have any knowledge about Ext.X2 Will. Ext.X2 Will was not produced before the Court when the plaintiffs filed their Written Statement to the counter Claim. In such a situation the plaintiff is perfectly justified to file a Written Statement raising all the defences available to them in the Written statement. Even in the absence of any plea on the part of the objector to the Will, when there are suspicious circumstances, the Propounder has to satisfy the conscience of the Court by adducing all possible evidence. 45. The Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no reason for Narayanan Achari to disturb the natural inheritance. The apparent inequality of the distribution of assets without sufficient explanation is a compelling factor to disbelieve the execution of Ext.X2 Will. He pointed out that the larger property having 7 cents is given to the defendants and the smaller property of 4 cents is given to all the male children including the defendants. It is quite unnatural. I am of the view that the unreasonableness in the distribution of assets in the Will by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the genuineness of the Will. The very purpose of the Will is to unsettle the natural inheritance. There may be several reasons within the knowledge of the testator for denying or giving a lesser or larger share to some of the legal heirs. The very purpose of the Will is to unsettle the natural inheritance. There may be several reasons within the knowledge of the testator for denying or giving a lesser or larger share to some of the legal heirs. Hence inequality in the distribution of assets in Ext.X2 cannot be taken as a ground to disbelieve the Ext.X2 Will. 46. Going by S.68 of the Evidence Act, at least one attesting witness is to be called for proving execution of a Will. The defendants have examined DW3 as the attesting witness of Ext.X2 Will, to prove its execution. As rightly found by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court that there is material contradiction in the evidence of DW3 when he was examined on 04.07.2005 and 29.09.2010. He sworn Proof Affidavit that Narayanan Achari signed the Will in his presence, and he signed in the presence of Narayanan Achari. But when he was cross examined, he stated that he had signed only on the Cover of the Will; that he signed at the registration office; that he does not remember in whose presence he signed; that the cover was sealed; that he did not know what are the records inside the cover and that he did not read the same. He even deposed that he did not know the defendants. But when he was again examined on 29.09.2010 after remand by the First Appellate Court, he identified his signature on Ext.X2. He stated that he signed the Will in front of the District Registrar and that he signed on Ext.X2 Will, Application, and Ext.X3 Cover. He stated that he had known the first defendant for several years. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that such contradictions happened in the evidence of DW3 since at the time when he was examined Ext.X2 was not available in the Court. But I am of the view that the contradictions in the evidence of DW3 could not be on account of the nonproduction of Ext.X2 will. He gave evidence with respect to the execution of Ext.X2 will and such evidence is with respect to an incident and for giving evidence with respect to such incident, the production of Ext.X2 document is not material. When DW7 who was the scribe of Ext.X2 was examined, he specifically stated that Achari and others signed the document in his Office. He gave evidence with respect to the execution of Ext.X2 will and such evidence is with respect to an incident and for giving evidence with respect to such incident, the production of Ext.X2 document is not material. When DW7 who was the scribe of Ext.X2 was examined, he specifically stated that Achari and others signed the document in his Office. DW7 stated in his Proof Affidavit that the Will is produced in a sealed cover before the Registrar. In the examination on the first date, DW1 admitted that he signed only on the cover and it was sealed. But when DW3 was examined again after remand, he stated that he put his signature in the Will before the Registrar. If the Will is produced in a Sealed Cover as stated by DW7, DW3’s evidence that he signed the Will before the Registrar is not acceptable. The contradiction of evidence of DW7 with respect to the production of the title deed has already been dealt with by me in the previous paragraphs. As stated earlier there is a visible difference between the signatures of Narayanan Achari in Ext.X2 and in Ext.B3 written statement. Ext.X2 is dated 28.06.1995 whereas Ext.B3 written statement is dated August 1996. There could not be any visible difference in the signature of Narayanan Achari in both these documents which are contemporaneous documents, if both are signed by the same person. 47. Ext.X3 cover is seen produced by Narayanan Achari. It bears the signature and thumb impression of Narayanan Achari. DW3 and other attesting witness namely, Radhakrishnan have signed as the persons who identified Narayanan Achari. When the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses is insufficient to prove the execution of the disputed Will, the non-examination of the second attesting witness is a strong circumstance to hold against the execution of the Will. When there occurred contradictions in the evidence of DW3, the defendants could have examined the second attesting witness to prove the execution of Ext.X2 by Narayanan Achari. In such a case the Court could have had a better assessment of the weightage of evidence to prove execution of Ext.X2. The defendants could have obtained expert evidence from the Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Expert to prove that the said signature and thumb impression belong to Narayanan Achari. In such a case the Court could have had a better assessment of the weightage of evidence to prove execution of Ext.X2. The defendants could have obtained expert evidence from the Handwriting Expert and Fingerprint Expert to prove that the said signature and thumb impression belong to Narayanan Achari. DW6 has specifically stated that the District Registrar during the time of deposit of Ext.X2 was L.Gomathy and she retired about four five or years back. DW6 was examined in the year 2010. The said Registrar namely Smt. L Gomathy should have been examined by the defendant to prove that Ext.X3 cover containing Ext.X2 will be deposited by Narayanan Achari with her. The non examination of the District Registrar who accepted the deposit of Ext.X3 cover containing Ext.X2 Will and non-adducing expert evidence with respect to the handwriting and thumb impression of Narayanan Achari are fatal to the case of the defendants. If the Propounder fails to adduce a material piece of evidence available to him to prove the Will, that may be a circumstance to doubt the genuineness of the Will. Hence, I am of the view that the execution of Ext.X2 Will by Narayanan Achari and deposit of Ext.X3 by Narayanan Achari before the District Registrar is not sufficiently proved by the defendants to the satisfaction of the Court. 48. In the Preliminary Decree, the Trial Court granted relief that the residential building in the Plaint Schedule Property is not partible and has to be allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff. According to the Trial Court the evidence of PW1, PW2, and Ext.A6 are sufficient to prove that the building in the plaint schedule property is constructed by the 1st plaintiff. In the Plaint no relief is claimed by the 1st plaintiff over the building in the Plaint Schedule property. The averment is only that the said building was constructed by Narayanan Achari and the 1st plaintiff. In the Proof Affidavit of PW2, the statement is that major expenses are met by the 1st plaintiff and that Narayanan Achari was also there. The statement in the Proof affidavit of PW1 is that Ext.A6 contains the approximate details of the amounts expended for construction. The defendants have challenged Ext.A6 in cross-examination. Ext.A6 appears to be the Diary of the 1st plaintiff in his own handwriting. It is only a self-serving document and it could not be relied on. The statement in the Proof affidavit of PW1 is that Ext.A6 contains the approximate details of the amounts expended for construction. The defendants have challenged Ext.A6 in cross-examination. Ext.A6 appears to be the Diary of the 1st plaintiff in his own handwriting. It is only a self-serving document and it could not be relied on. Even according to the Plaint allegations, he has met only part of the expenditure for construction. In Proof Affidavit Pw1 admits that Ext.A6 contains only approximate details of expenses. The shares of contribution are not disclosed either in the Plaint or in the pleadings. So, there is no sufficient evidence that it is the 1st plaintiff who has constructed the building in the Plaint Schedule property. In the absence of any prayer the Trial Court acted illegally in granting relief that the residential building in the Plaint Schedule Property is not partible and it has to be allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff. The Preliminary Decree passed by the Trial Court is liable to interfered with to that effect. 49. In view of the above discussion, the Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 to 4 framed in the appeal are answered in the negative, and the Substantial Questions of Law No.5 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff. The additional Substantial Questions of Law No.6 is answered in the negative and in favour of the defendants. 50. In the result, this Regular Second Appeal is partly allowed without costs, setting aside and modifying the Preliminary decree of the Trial Court to the extent of deleting the Relief No.2 that the residential building in the Plaint Schedule Properties is not partible and it has to be allotted to the share of the 1st plaintiff.