JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short 'the C.P.C.'], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 15.09.2003, in O.S. No.54 of 2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram [for short 'the trial Court']. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit. 2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the Suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint A and B schedule properties and for giving possession of the same to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled for past and future profits of plaint schedule properties. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.54 of 2000, are as under: The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the first defendant. The plaintiffs have got two sons and one daughter by name Kanaka Durga. The first plaintiff got divided his family properties with his two sons in the year 1993 and his two sons are living separately and they are married. The plaintiffs' only daughter Kanaka Durga was given in marriage to the first defendant, who is the adoptive son of Sri Edupuganti Venkataratnam and Smt. Seethamma of Nadipalli Kota, West Godavari District. Their marriage was performed at Penikeru on 11.10.1989. The marriage was consummated and Smt. Kanaka Durga joined the society of first defendant at Nadipalli Kota. The plaintiffs gave an extent of Ac.0.26 cents of land in R.S.No.25/1B of Penikeru village at the time of marriage to Kanaka Durga as per the caste custom and conventions and delivered possession of the same to her. The first defendant and his adoptive parents are not happy with the givings to Kanaka Durga and they started torturing and harassing Smt. Kanaka Durga that she was not given any landed property except Ac.0.26 cents. Having no other go, the first plaintiff yielded to their dictate and purchased the land situated in Nadipalli Kota in the name of his daughter Kanaka Durga in the year 1995 which is the plaint A schedule property. Even thereafter also Smt. Kanaka Durga is not treated well by the first defendant and his adoptive parents. Having no other go, the first plaintiff yielded to their dictate and purchased the land situated in Nadipalli Kota in the name of his daughter Kanaka Durga in the year 1995 which is the plaint A schedule property. Even thereafter also Smt. Kanaka Durga is not treated well by the first defendant and his adoptive parents. Due to that agony and mental torture, the health of Kanaka Durga was effected and it became bad after May 1998. The plaintiffs got her treated at Tanuku and on the advise of Tanuku doctors, the plaintiffs took her to Kakinada and got her treated at Kakinada. At that time Smt. Kanaka Durga had apprehension of her life and surviving and hence she executed a will in favour of plaintiffs on 26.06.1998 at Penikeru and the said will was notarized at Kakinada on 27.06.1998. Kanaka Durga died on 08.07.1998 at Sudha Hospital at Kakinada, on her demise, as per the will, the plaint A schedule property bequeathed to the plaintiffs and they became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule properties, the first defendant and his adoptive parents also stated the plaintiffs can deal the property as they pleased, but appraised the property is leased out to the second defendant by Kanaka Durga, later the second defendant also represented that he will pay the Maktha for the said property, but the second defendant failed to comply his promise, then the first plaintiff approached the first defendant, then the first defendant stated that the first plaintiff is no way concerned with the land. Then the first plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendants, to which the defendants issued a reply with false allegations. It is also came to the knowledge of the first plaintiff that the first defendant during the life time of his wife Kanaka Durga, manipulated several forged documents and got brought up documents to have wrongful gain apprehending about the health of Kanaka Durga. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - From the date of marriage till her death, the first defendant and his adoptive parents treated Smt. Kanaka Durga affectionately. The plaintiffs have not contributed any amount and their amount was not utilized for purchasing the land. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - From the date of marriage till her death, the first defendant and his adoptive parents treated Smt. Kanaka Durga affectionately. The plaintiffs have not contributed any amount and their amount was not utilized for purchasing the land. Whenever the first defendant and his wife used to visit the house of the plaintiffs for Pongal etc., they were presented with only clothes but not money and no land was given to kanaka Durga, much less Ac.0.26 cents of land in plaint B schedule property at the time of marriage of Kanaka Durga. The plaint A schedule property was purchased in the name of Kanaka Durga in the year 1995 and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first defendant as the mother of the first defendant sold her Ac.1.00 cents of land in the year 1991 and the entire sale consideration was kept with her and was improving it. Smt. Kanaka Durga was affected with fever and elips, for that, she was treated by doctor at Tanuku, but that treatment was not given any improvement, so, she was admitted in the hospital at Tanuku on 24.06.1998 and she was in the hospital till 30.06.1998. In the meanwhile, it was diagnosed as on attack of abdomen trouble, but she was in semi conscious all the while. She was advised to take Kakinada for scanning and for general tests and for further investigation. Accordingly, on 25.06.1998 she was taken to Sai Sudha Hospital, Kakinada. From the evening of 25.06.1998 Kanaka Durga was unconscious and went into coma and till her death she was in coma. The condition of Kanaka Durga was informed to the plaintiffs on 24.06.1998 itself, then they came to hospital and followed the first defendant. So, there was no occasion for Kanaka Durga to go to her parents' house at Penikeru or an advocate at Kakinada. Hence the will dated 26.06.1998 is false and it is a concocted. When Kanaka Durga is not fully conscious from 25.06.1998 onwards and went into coma on 26.06.1998, the question of she has executed a will, will not arise, likewise the notarization of the will on 27.06.1998 also not arise. It proves the alleged will is forged. Hence the will dated 26.06.1998 is false and it is a concocted. When Kanaka Durga is not fully conscious from 25.06.1998 onwards and went into coma on 26.06.1998, the question of she has executed a will, will not arise, likewise the notarization of the will on 27.06.1998 also not arise. It proves the alleged will is forged. There is no reference of plaint B schedule properties in the will and it is also not referred why the first defendant was excluded. As Smt. Kanaka Durga died intestate, the first defendant, as her husband, is her sole heir, so the plaint A schedule properties devolved on the first defendant. Kanaka Durga has not possessed plaint B schedule property and she never enjoyed the plaint B schedule property or the yield. Plaint A schedule properties are absolutely belongs to late Kanaka Durga and they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of first defendant and the first defendant personally cultivated the land and he never leased out the same to the second defendant. The second defendant was set up by the plaintiffs for the purpose of the suit and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the will dated 26.06.1998 is true, valid and binding on the defendant No.1? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are having title to the plaint A schedule property? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are having title in plaint B schedule properties? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for, plaint A and B schedule properties? (v) Whether tenancy of second defendant is true? (vi) Whether Court has got territorial jurisdiction? (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of plaint A schedule property? (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for past and future profits from plaint A schedule properties? (ix) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the first Defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked. 8. (ix) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A7 were marked. On behalf of the first Defendant DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 15.09.2003, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for appellants and Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the first respondent. 10. Learned counsel for appellants/plaintiffs would contend that the trial Judge ought to have seen that plaint A schedule properties, item Nos.1 and 2 consisting of Ac.2.29 cents, were purchased by the plaintiffs in the name of their deceased daughter Kanaka Durga with the funds of appellants in the month of June, 1995 and it is the absolute Sthreedhana property of deceased Kanaka Durga. He would further contend that without properly appreciating the provisions of Section 15 (i) and (ii) of Hindu Succession Act 1956, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on erroneous view of law and fact. He would further contend that the trial Court ought to have believed Ex.A3 will dated 26.06.1998 executed by Smt. Kanaka Durga which was duly attested by PW3 and PW4 and the appellants also discharged their burden by examining the 2 attestors under Section 68 of Evidence Act as PW3 and PW4. He would further contend that the trial Court came to wrong conclusion that Ex.A3 will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and further contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the following points would arise for determination: 1. Whether Ex.A1 will dated 26.06.1998 is proved in accordance with law? 2. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled the relief of declaration of title over plaint A and B schedule properties and recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property as prayed in the plaint? 3. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? 13. Point No.1: Whether Ex.A1 will dated 26.06.1998 is proved in accordance with law? The case of the plaintiffs is that the appellants/plaintiffs have got two sons and one daughter and the first plaintiff got divided his family properties with his two sons in the year 1983 and both the sons are married and living separately. They further pleaded that the first defendant is the adopted son of one Edupuganti Venkataratnam and his wife Seethamma of Nadipalli Kota, West Godavari District and the plaintiffs are having only daughter by name Kanaka Durga and her marriage was performed with the first defendant by the plaintiffs at Penikeru on 11.10.1989 as per Hindu rites and caste custom and the marriage was also duly consummated and the said Kanaka Durga was sent to her in-laws place at Nadipalli Kota, West Godavari District and she lived with her husband at that place. The appellants further pleaded that their daughter executed Ex.A3 unregistered will dated 26.06.1998 in respect of plaint A schedule property in which the plaintiffs are having right in the plaint A schedule property and by virtue of will Ex.A3 the appellants are having right and title in the plaint A schedule property. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contend that the plaint A schedule property was purchased in the name of wife of first defendant by the first defendant in the year 1995 and the entire sale consideration was paid by the first defendant, as he sold his Ac.1.00 cents of land in the year 1991 and the entire sale consideration was kept with him and was improving it and he withdrew the amount from his bank at the time of purchase of land and the remaining amount was the proceeds of the income on the personal land of the first defendant. The first defendant further pleaded that the entire sale consideration for the A schedule property was paid by the first defendant and his mother only. They further pleaded that the alleged Ex.A3 will is a forged one and Smt. Kanaka Durga never executed any will during her life time in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged will Ex.A3 is strongly disputed by the defendants, therefore, it is for the appellants to prove the alleged will dated 26.06.1998. The alleged will is dated 26.06.1998 and the testatrix died on 08.07.1998 i.e., within 2 weeks of the alleged Ex.A3 will. Since the respondents/defendants are seriously contesting that the alleged will Ex.A3 is a fabricated one, therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs i.e., propounders of the alleged will Ex.A3 have to prove Ex.A3 in accordance with law. 14. PW1 is the first plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are got marked through PW1. Ex.A1 is the certificate said to have been issued by one Dr.Ravi Vadrevu, in Ex.A1 it was mentioned that Smt. Durga accompanied by her father was admitted in their hospital on 01.07.1998 and she died on 08.07.1998. Ex.A2 is the report issued by the laboratory dated 30.06.1998, Ex.A3 is unregistered will, Ex.A4 is the death extract issued by Kakinada Municipality to the effect that Smt. Kanaka Durga died on 08.07.1998 at Sudha Hospital, Kakinada. Ex.A1 certificate issued by the doctor is got marked through PW1. But it was not marked through the doctor, who issued Ex.A1 certificate and the said doctor, who alleged to have been issued Ex.A1 is not at all examined by the appellants. As seen from the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A4 death certificate and Ex.B13 medical certificate, it is clear that Kanaka Durga was undergoing treatment from 01.07.1998 to 08.07.1998 in the hospital and died on 08.07.1998 at Sudha Hospital, Kakinada and the cause of death is meningitis. As per the admissions of PW1, the said Kanaka Durga was treated first at Tanuku hospital and brought to Kakinada from Nadipalli Kota village for medical treatment, but there is no whisper in the evidence of PW1 when she was brought from Nadipalli Kota to Kakinada for admitting her in the hospital. It is also relevant to say as per the case of PW1 Kanaka Durga was brought from Penikeru to Kakinada for notarizing the will at Kakinada before the advocate/notary. It is also relevant to say as per the case of PW1 Kanaka Durga was brought from Penikeru to Kakinada for notarizing the will at Kakinada before the advocate/notary. There is no whisper in the evidence of PW1 that under what circumstances Kanaka Durga was brought from Nadipalli Kota, Tanuku to Kakinada and so far, the alleged shifting of Kanaka Durga from Penikeru to Kakinada in connection with the alleged execution of Ex.A3 will. 15. To prove the alleged Ex.A3 will, the plaintiffs relied on the evidence of PW3 and PW4. PW3 is the first attestor in the alleged will. PW4 is the another attestor in the alleged will. As per the evidence of PW3, the testatrix bequeathed all her property to her parents with absolute ownership. In cross examination, he admits at about 11.00 a.m. on that day when he was going to his house for taking lunch passing through that way, at that time, the first plaintiff called him, when he went into the house of plaintiffs, the deceased kanaka Durga and her mother, the scribe and PW2 are present. The first plaintiff has not deposed about the presence of second plaintiff at the time of alleged execution of Ex.A3 at penikeru village. Furthermore, the second plaintiff also did not enter into the witness box to prove her presence at the time of alleged Ex.A3. As per the case of the plaintiffs their daughter having doubt over her health condition, expressed her desire to write the will. In such a case, they shall secure the presence of attestors and scribe for preparation of the will in advance, but they are not supposed to invite the passers who are proceeding on the road to attest the will. Furthermore, as per the evidence of PW3, when he went there, the testatrix is giving instructions to scribe to prepare the will. Further more, as per the evidence of PW3, he was called by the first plaintiff, while he was passing through the way for taking lunch to his house. As per the evidence of PW2, he secure the presence of both the attestors. It is also admitted by PW1, he has no personal knowledge about the contents of alleged Ex.A3 will and he know the contents of alleged will after the death of the testatrix. As per the evidence of PW2, he secure the presence of both the attestors. It is also admitted by PW1, he has no personal knowledge about the contents of alleged Ex.A3 will and he know the contents of alleged will after the death of the testatrix. It is not the case of PW1 that he called the PW3 to attest Ex.A3 alleged will, by that time, PW3 is proceeding in front of his house. As stated supra, the alleged will is unregistered will, within 12 days of the alleged unregistered will, the testatrix died, the presence of second plaintiff at the time of execution of Ex.A3 on the date of alleged will is not at all spoken by either PW1 or PW2. Therefore, the presence of PW2, at the time of alleged execution of Ex.A3 is highly doubtful. 16. PW4 is the second attestor. As per his evidence when he visited kanaka Durga on first occasion itself, the execution of the will has taken place and he attested the will accidentally. Furthermore, he admits that he was not invited by anybody to act as a witness to the alleged will. As per his evidence, he subscribed his signatures on two pages and PW2 delivered the papers requesting him to scribe his signature, but Ex.A3 goes to show the signature of PW4 is only available on the last page of Ex.A3. As per the evidence of PW2, he secure the presence of PW3 and PW4, after the will is prepared, PW3 and PW4 came to attest the will. Another important admission made by PW2 is that except his word there is no documentary evidence to show that he was present at the time of alleged execution of Ex.A3 will, Ex.A3 will does not bear his signatures. As stated supra, according to PW2, after Ex.A3 will is prepared, the attestors came. But as per the own admissions of PW3, by that time he arrived the will is being drafted. Therefore, the presence of PW3 and PW4 at the time of alleged will is highly doubtful. As per the evidence of PW1 he is not having personal knowledge about the execution of alleged Ex.A3 will. 17. The date of the alleged will is 26.06.1998. As per the evidence of PW2 to PW4 the will was prepared and executed at Penikeru and Ex.A3 alleged will is attested at Penikeru. As per the evidence of PW1 he is not having personal knowledge about the execution of alleged Ex.A3 will. 17. The date of the alleged will is 26.06.1998. As per the evidence of PW2 to PW4 the will was prepared and executed at Penikeru and Ex.A3 alleged will is attested at Penikeru. As per the case of plaintiff, the alleged will was notarised before Advocate notary at Kakinada on 27.06.1998. Furthermore, the distance in between Penikeru to Kakinada is 60 kilometers, to proceed Kakinada from Penikeru the testatrix has to cross the Alamuru, Mandapeta and Ramachandrapuram. It is a fact that there are notary advocates at Alamuru and Mandapeta, at where the Courts are also situated. As per the evidence of PW1, he know the advocate one Sri Bindu Madhava Rao at Alamuru. Therefore, it is also one of the suspicious circumstances to disbelieve the Ex.A3 will was notarized at Kakinada before advocate/notary on 27.06.1998. The alleged advocate/notary is also not at all examined by the plaintiffs. As per the pleadings in the plaint, their daughter was harassed and tortured by the first defendant and his parents, moreover, no evidence is adduced by the plaintiffs to show that their daughter was harassed and tortured by the first defendant and his parents. Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the deceased and first defendant lead marital life from 11.10.1989 till the year 1998 i.e., till the date of her death. It is also admitted by the plaintiffs that the marriage of kanaka Durga with the first defendant was consummated and they lead marital life for a period of 9 years at the house of first defendant. Admittedly, no cases are filed against the first defendant or his parents by Kanaka Durga or her parents. There is no whisper in Ex.A3 alleged will that she is having ill-feelings with her husband and her in-laws. No property was devolved by the deceased on the first defendant under the alleged will. The reasons for excluding her husband for not inheriting the properties is not at all mentioned by the deceased in Ex.A3 alleged will. 18. There is no whisper in Ex.A3 alleged will that she is having ill-feelings with her husband and her in-laws. No property was devolved by the deceased on the first defendant under the alleged will. The reasons for excluding her husband for not inheriting the properties is not at all mentioned by the deceased in Ex.A3 alleged will. 18. Four Judges Bench of Apex Court in the case of Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another, AIR 1962 SC 567 held as follows: We have already pointed out that the High Court was of the view that there were suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the will and that it was an unnatural will. The testator left behind him his widow and his married daughter (who are appellants before us) and an unmarried sister who was dependent upon him. Besides these, the testator had a number of other relations who were much nearer to him than the respondent. Even if we leave out of account the married daughter and the other nearer relations, the widow and the sister were certainly expected to be properly provided for by the testator. It is not in dispute that the relations between the testator and his wife and sister were good. In these circumstances, we should have expected something better than what is provided in the will for these two, All that the will says is that the wife and the sister would be suitably maintained by the respondent during their life-time. No amount is specified which should be given to these two ladies as maintenance and no charge is created on the properties left by the testator which were considerable. In effect, the two ladies were left to the tender mercies of the respondent in the matter of their maintenance. Further the result of this will is that the daughter would be completely disinherited. The testator had a number of children but all had died many years before and only one daughter was alive at the time of his death. She was married and on behalf of the propounder it is said that the relations between the testator mid her husband were not very happy. The evidence, however, does not show that the relations between the testator and his son-in-law were particularly strained at the time of the execution of the will. She was married and on behalf of the propounder it is said that the relations between the testator mid her husband were not very happy. The evidence, however, does not show that the relations between the testator and his son-in-law were particularly strained at the time of the execution of the will. In any case there is no satisfactory evidence to show that relations between the testator and his daughter were bad, even if the relations between him and his son-in-law were not of the best, In the circumstances we should have expected the testator to make some provision for the daughter, particularly when it is said that she was not well-off. There is no doubt therefore that the will is most unnatural and that is a suspicious circumstance which must be satisfactorily explained before the respondent can get letters of administration. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the case on hand, moreover, the propounders have unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which surround the execution and attestation of the alleged will. 19. In the case of Kavita Kanwar vs. Pamela Mehta and others, (2021) 11 SCC 209 , the apex Court held as follows: The Trial Court and the High Court have concurrently found some such suspicious circumstances which are of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. Put in a nutshell, the unexplained suspicious circumstances so found are: a. that appellant, the major beneficiary, played an active role in execution of the Will in question and attempted to conceal this fact before the Court; b. that there had not been any plausible reason for non- inclusion of the only son and other daughter of the testatrix in the process of execution of the Will and for excluding them from the major part of the estate in question; c. that there was no clarity about the construction supposed to be carried out by the appellant; d. that the manner of writing and execution of the Will with technical and legal words was highly doubtful; and e. that the attesting witnesses were unreliable and there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Because of these major circumstances coupled with various supplemental factors, the Trial Court and the High Court felt dissatisfied on the root question as to whether the testatrix duly executed the Will in question after understanding its contents. Because of these major circumstances coupled with various supplemental factors, the Trial Court and the High Court felt dissatisfied on the root question as to whether the testatrix duly executed the Will in question after understanding its contents. In the case on hand also the evidence of PW3 and PW4 were unreliable and there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, no reasons were assigned by the testatrix in the alleged Ex.A3 for non inclusion of her husband in the process of execution of alleged Ex.A3 and for excluding her husband for not inheriting the property under the alleged Ex.A3. 20. In a case of Gurdial Kaur and others vs. Kartar Kaur and others, (1998) 4 SCC 384 , the Apex Court held as follows: The law is well settled that the conscience of the Court must be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstance. As in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court of Appeal below did not accept the valid execution of the Will by indicating reasons and coming to a specific finding that suspicion had not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court and such finding of the Court of Appeal below has also been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment, we do not find any reason to interfere with such decision. This ap peal, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. 21. In a case of Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others, (2007) 9 SCC 728 , the Apex Court held as follows: Existence of suspicious circumstances itself may be held to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that execution of the Will has not duly been proved. 22. 21. In a case of Benga Behera and another vs. Braja Kishore Nanda and others, (2007) 9 SCC 728 , the Apex Court held as follows: Existence of suspicious circumstances itself may be held to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that execution of the Will has not duly been proved. 22. In a case of Gorantla Thataiah vs. Thotakura Venkata Subbaiah and others, AIR 1968 SC 1332 , the Apex Court held as follows: In a case in which a will is prepared under circumstances which raise the suspicion of the Court that it does not express the mind of the testator it is for those who propound the will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances must be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case, If, however, the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the Court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious manner. In the case on hand also the propounders of the alleged will fail to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged execution of Ex.A3 will. 23. The learned counsel for appellants placed a reliance of Hemkunwar Bai vs. Sumersingh and others, 2019 LawSuit (SC) 1943, the facts in the aforesaid case law relates to execution of registered will and sub-registrar read over the contents of the sale deeds and the will to the executant. In the case on hand, the alleged will is unregistered will and the testatrix died within 12 days of the alleged will. 24. There are several suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged execution of Ex.A3 will. Those are as follows: 1. One of the attestor of alleged will PW3 stated while he was passing on the road in front of the house of the plaintiff, he was called by first plaintiff i.e., PW1 to attest the Ex.A3 will and by that time, he entered into the house of plaintiff, Kanaka Durga is giving instructions to prepare Ex.A3 will. But as per the evidence of first plaintiff i.e., PW1, he was not present when the will was prepared and he has no personal knowledge about the contents of Ex.A3, after the death of the testatrix only, he knew the recitals of the alleged will. But as per the evidence of first plaintiff i.e., PW1, he was not present when the will was prepared and he has no personal knowledge about the contents of Ex.A3, after the death of the testatrix only, he knew the recitals of the alleged will. As per the evidence of PW2, he secured the presence of both the attestors and attestors came after the will is prepared. 2. PW4 is second attestor to the alleged will. According to PW4 when he visited Kanaka Durga on first occasion itself, the execution of alleged will has been taken place and he attested the same accidentally and he clearly admitted that he was not invited by anybody to act as a witness in the alleged will. According to him, he subscribed his signature on two pages and PW2 delivered the paper requesting him to subscribe the signature, but Ex.A3 goes to show the signature of PW4 is only available on the last page of Ex.A3. According to PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, the will was executed at Penikeru village on 26.06.1998 but not at Kakinada. In the plaint averments also it was mentioned the Ex.A3 will was executed at Penikeru on 26.06.1998 and later it was notarized at Kakinada on 27.06.1998. The distance in between Penikeru and Kakinada is approximately 60 kilometers. As per the advocate/notary endorsement dated 27.06.1998, "the said will is prepared with dated 26.06.1998 and it was brought to his office on 27.06.1998 and the same was read over by the scribe to the executant before the witnesses and she admitted the same and executed the will (signed) in his office and then witnesses and the scribe also signed on the will before him at Kakinada". It is not the case of either PW3 or PW4 that they attested Ex.A3 alleged will at Kakinada before the advocate/notary. 3. Another suspicious circumstance to doubt the alleged will is as per the evidence of doctor which is supported by Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, the deceased was admitted in the hospital of DW2 at Tanuku. DW2 is a doctor, who is practicing at Tanuku in West Godavari District. As per his evidence, the deceased Kanaka Durga was admitted in the hospital as in patient from 24.06.1998 to 30.06.1998 which is supported by documentary evidence. DW2 is a doctor, who is practicing at Tanuku in West Godavari District. As per his evidence, the deceased Kanaka Durga was admitted in the hospital as in patient from 24.06.1998 to 30.06.1998 which is supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the execution of alleged Ex.A3 will on 26.06.1998 at Penikeru in East Godavari District at the house of plaintiffs was highly doubtful and it is also highly doubtful to attest Ex.A3 will on 27.06.1998 before the advocate/notary at Kakinada. As per the evidence of DW2 on 24.06.1998 the said Kanaka Durga was admitted as inpatient in his hospital in Tanuku and they have maintained the registers in the hospital. It is also mentioned in Ex.B1 certificate said to have been issued by DW2 that Smt. kanaka Durga, wife of first defendant, was admitted in his nursing home at Tanuku on 24.06.1998 for continuous fits and he requested Dr.V.Somasekhar to come and examine the patient and on his advice, Kanaka Durga was taken in the early hours of 25.06.1998 for undergoing certain tests and she was brought back to Tanuku on the night of 25.06.1998 after investigation and at that time she was unconscious state of mind and on 26.06.1998 morning she went to coma and she was treated by him till 30.06.1998. In such a case, it is highly impossible to execute Ex.A3 alleged will on 26.06.1998 by kanaka Durga at Penikeru at the house of the plaintiffs. It is not the case of the appellants that DW2 doctor is a related to the defendants and the appellants are having enmity with DW2. 25. It is relevant to say as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, Ex.A3 will was notarized at Kakinada. As stated supra, Kanaka Durga was admitted as inpatient at Tanuku, West Godavari District from 24.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. It is also one of the strong suspicious circumstance to disbelieve the will. 26. As per the plaint averments and as per the evidence of PW1, their daughter was harassed by the first defendant and his family members from the date of marriage. It is a fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove the said allegation. No single allegation is made against her husband and her in-laws by the testatrix in the alleged Ex.A3 will. It is a fact, no evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove the said allegation. No single allegation is made against her husband and her in-laws by the testatrix in the alleged Ex.A3 will. It is the admitted case of the plaintiffs that after the marriage from 11.10.1989 onwards till the year 1998 i.e., till the date of the death of testatrix Kanaka Durga lived with her husband at her in-laws house and no cases are filed against the first defendant and his parents either by deceased or by the parents of the deceased. The testatrix did not give any reason in the alleged Ex.A3 will for excluding her husband for not inheriting the Ex.A3 property, it is also one of the strong suspicious circumstance to disbelieve the Ex.A3 alleged will. 27. In the alleged will it was recited after her marriage, she purchased the property with the amount given by her parents, admittedly, no sale deeds are filed by the plaintiffs. As per the plaint averments, the first plaintiff purchased the A schedule property in the name of his daughter with his own funds, admittedly, no evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove the same, therefore, non-giving reasons for excluding her husband about the disposition of the property by the testatrix is fatal to the case of the appellants. There are several contradictions in the evidence of both the attestors i.e., PW3 and PW4, those cannot be ignored. As per the evidence of DW2 coupled with Ex.B1, Kanaka Durga was admitted as inpatient in the hospital on 24.06.1998, till 30.06.1998 she was as inpatient in the hospital at Tanuku in West Godavari District. As per the case of the plaintiffs, Smt. Kanaka Durga executed the alleged will Ex.A3 at Penikeru village of East Godavari District on 26.06.1998 and on 27.06.1998 it was notarized before advocate/notary at Kakinada, East Godavari District. It is also strong suspicious circumstance to disprove the alleged will. 28. The propounders of the alleged will have unable to dispel the aforesaid suspicious circumstances, which surrounded the execution of the alleged will. As stated supra, the aforesaid all suspicious circumstances of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. It is the duty of the propounder of the will that all the aforesaid legitimate suspicious circumstances should be completely removed before the alleged Ex.A3 will is accepted, as the last will of the testatrix. As stated supra, the aforesaid all suspicious circumstances of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. It is the duty of the propounder of the will that all the aforesaid legitimate suspicious circumstances should be completely removed before the alleged Ex.A3 will is accepted, as the last will of the testatrix. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very high and unless it is satisfactorily discharged the Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testatrix. As per the own case of the plaintiffs their daughter is suffering from illness and also admitted as inpatient in the hospital at Kakinada and died in the hospital at Kakinada. The evidence of DW2 coupled with documentary evidence produced by the respondents/defendants clinchingly proves that the deceased Kanaka Durga was admitted as inpatient in the hospital of DW2 on 24.06.1998 and she was as inpatient in the hospital at Tanuku in West Godavari District till 30.06.1998. Therefore, it is also one of the strong suspicious circumstance to come to conclusion that the alleged Ex.A3 will is not a genuine one because she was admitted as inpatient in the hospital of DW2 from 24.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. Therefore, it is highly impossible to execute the alleged Ex.A3 will by Kanaka Durga at Penikeru in East Godavari District which is far away place from Tanuku and also attestation before the advocate/notary on 27.06.1998 at Kakinada in East Godavari District. When the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the person propounding the will has a very heavy burden to discharge. 29. In a case of H.Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N.Thimmajamma, AIR (1) 1959 SC 443, the Apex Court held that when a will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the burden is heavily lies on the propounder of the alleged will to disprove the suspicious circumstances. In the case on hand, the propounders of the alleged Ex.A3 will have unable to dispel the aforesaid strong suspicious circumstances which surrounded the alleged execution of Ex.A3 will. Therefore, the alleged Ex.A3 will is not proved in accordance with law, accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the appellants. 30. Point No.2: Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled the relief of declaration of title over plaint A and B schedule properties and recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property as prayed in the plaint? Therefore, the alleged Ex.A3 will is not proved in accordance with law, accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the appellants. 30. Point No.2: Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled the relief of declaration of title over plaint A and B schedule properties and recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property as prayed in the plaint? The appellants/plaintiffs are claiming the relief of declaration of plaint A and B schedule property. So far as plaint B schedule property is concerned, the first defendant specifically pleaded in the written statement that he is no way concerned with the plaint B schedule property and plaint B schedule property was not given to Kanaka Durga at the time of their marriage. The plaintiffs in this suit are claiming the relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint A schedule property and also recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property. The Law is well settled that in the suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiffs could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weaknesses of the case of the defendants. The burden is on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. In a suit for declaration of title, the law is well settled by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society 2014 2 SCC 269 as follows: It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiffs to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. 31. As stated supra from the beginning itself, the first defendant is severely contesting that he is no way concerned with the plaint B schedule property and the plaint B schedule property was not at all given to his wife Kanaka Durga at the time of marriage. Furthermore, no single document is filed by the appellants to show that the plaint B schedule property was also given to Kanaka Durga at the time of their marriage. Furthermore, no single document is filed by the appellants to show that the plaint B schedule property was also given to Kanaka Durga at the time of their marriage. No oral evidence is adduced by the appellants to show that the plaint B schedule property was also given to their daughter at the time of her marriage towards Pasupukumkuma. The case of the appellants is that they have given plaint B schedule property to their daughter towards Pasupukumkuma at the time of her marriage. The contention of the plaintiffs is that their daughter Kanaka Durga executed Ex.A3 will bequeathing plaint A schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs herein. Even assume, if really plaint B schedule property is given by the parents of Kanaka Durga to Kanaka Durga at the time of her marriage, naturally plaint B schedule property will include in the alleged Ex.A3 will. It is also negatived the case of the plaintiffs that they have given plaint B schedule property to their daughter at the time of her marriage towards Pasupukumkuma. In fact, as seen from the appeal grounds, the present appeal filed by the appellants is confined with regard to the plaint A schedule property only. By virtue of the alleged will Ex.A3, the appellants herein sought the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint A schedule property. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly came to conclusion that when there is no claim by the defendants in respect of B schedule property, the question of granting declaration in favour of the plaintiffs will not arise. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the learned trial Judge. 32. The contention of the appellants is that in view of the harassment made by their son-in-law on their daughter, on the dictation of the defendants, they purchased the plaint A schedule property in the name of their daughter Kanaka Durga with their own funds in the year 1995. Admittedly, the original sale deed said to have been obtained in the name of Kanaka Durga is not yet filed by the appellants. Admittedly, the original sale deed said to have been obtained in the name of Kanaka Durga is not yet filed by the appellants. It is the admitted case of the appellants that they performed the marriage of their daughter Kanaka Durga with the first defendant on 11.10.1989 and the marriage was also consummated and sent their daughter to her in-laws house in West Godavari District to lead family marital life and Kanaka Durga lead marital life till the year 1998 i.e., till the date of her death. It is also not in dispute that no cases are filed against the first defendant or his family members either by Kanaka Durga or by her parents. As noticed supra, there is no whisper in the alleged Ex.A3 will that there are ill-feelings in between Kanaka Durga and the first defendant. There is no evidence on record to prove the alleged harassment as pleaded by the appellants. In fact, the material on record clearly proves that there were no misunderstandings between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, even after the death of Kanaka Durga, the plaintiffs also attended the second marriage of first defendant on 12.12.1998. As per the case of the plaintiffs, the schedule property was purchased in the name of their married daughter in the year 1995 after six years of the date of marriage. Furthermore, there was a ample evidence to show that the first defendant purchased the plaint A schedule property after six years of the marriage in the name of his wife. The case of the appellants is that they have got title in the plaint A schedule property by virtue of Ex.A3 will executed by their daughter. As stated supra, the alleged Ex.A3 will is not at all proved in accordance with law by the appellants. Therefore, Kanaka Durga died intestate and the first defendant being the husband of late Kanaka Durga is having title in the plaint A schedule property as per intestate succession by virtue of Section 15 (i) (a) of Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the first defendant is having right and title in the plaint A schedule property and the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of declaration of title in the plaint A schedule property. Therefore, the first defendant is having right and title in the plaint A schedule property and the plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of declaration of title in the plaint A schedule property. Since the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled the relief of declaration of title in plaint A schedule property, question of granting of recovery of possession in plaint A schedule property does not arise, accordingly, the point No.2 is answered against the appellants. 33. Point No.3: Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit? In view of my findings on point Nos.1 and 2, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under law and the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings given by the learned trial Judge in O.S.No.54 of 2000, dated 15.09.2003, on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ramachandra Puram. The point No.3 is answered accordingly. 34. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed, confirming the decree and Judgment dated 15.09.2003, in O.S.No.54 of 2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case each party do bear their own costs in the appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.