JUDGMENT : H.P. SANDESH, J. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration, permanent injunction and alterative relief of possession is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are grand sons of late C.C. Laxmanappa, S/o. Chikkariyappa. The said Laxmanappa had five sons namely, C.L. Shekarappa, father of defendant Nos.2 and 3, C.L. Shadakshari defendant No.1, Smt. Rathnamma, C.L. Ananda father of plaintiff and C.L. Thimmappa. Shekarappa pre-deceased Laxmanappa. After demise of Shekarappa, his legal heirs defendant Nos.2 to 4, Laxmanappa and his remaining sons continued in joint family. 4. The plaintiff is working in a private company at Bengaluru. As such, he is not in a position to appear regularly before the Court. Hence, he has executed a GPA in favour of his mother Smt. Suma and suit is filed by his mother on behalf of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is a joint family property of plaintiff and defendants. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 along with other children of Laxmanappa filed a suit for partition against Laxmanappa and his brother's son C.M. Nagaraju in O.S.No.217/2010. The said suit has ended in compromise on 13.10.2010. In the compromise, Laxmanappa was allotted suit schedule property and from the date of compromise in the suit, the joint family ceased and parties to the suit got their shares in the properties. It is contented that Laxmanappa became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by enjoying the same. The said Laxmanappa executed Will in respect of the suit schedule property on 19.10.2011 in favour of plaintiff. The said Will was registered on 20.10.2011. The said Laxmanappa executed Will out of his free will and consent with sound state of mind and he lost his breath on 03.01.2012. After the death of Laxmanappa, the plaintiff has applied for change of khatha of the suit schedule property before the Tahsildar, Tarikere. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have objected the same. The Tahsildar, Tarikere has passed an order on 04.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the title of the plaintiff and execution of the Will. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have objected the same. The Tahsildar, Tarikere has passed an order on 04.08.2014 rejecting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have disputed the title of the plaintiff and execution of the Will. The defendants on one or other pretext are trying to dispossess the plaintiff and trying to pick up quarrel and reap areca and coconut fruits from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and his GPA holder unable to resist the act of the defendants, filed the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. 5. The Court issued suit summons to the defendants, same was served on them and they appeared before the Court and filed the written statement. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. In the written statement, defendants have admitted the relationship between themselves and plaintiff and filing of earlier suit is also not disputed. It is further stated that suit schedule property has fallen to the share of said Laxmanappa, however physical possession has not been delivered to him, as the suit schedule property already been fallen to the share of Shekarappa, defendant No.1, father of plaintiff and Thimmappa equally. It is true that in terms of the compromise petition, final decree was passed and Laxmanappa became the owner of the suit schedule property and he lost his breath on 03.01.2012. However contented that the very execution of the Will is disputed and contend that it is created. 6. Having considered the averments made in the plaint and written statement, allowed the parties to lead evidence consequent upon framing of issues and having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly extracting the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in paragraph Nos.31 and 32, discussion was made in paragraph No.33 in coming to the conclusion that Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and not accepted the case of plaintiff and answered the issues as ‘negative’ and dismissed the suit. 7. Being agreed by the judgment and decree, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.54/2021. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that execution of the Will deed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and it requires interference and whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction as well. The First Appellate Court also having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal, formulated the point whether the Trial Court is justified in holding that execution of the Will deed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and it requires interference and whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction as well. The First Appellate Court considering both oral and documentary evidence and on reassessing both evidence and material available on record answered point Nos.1 and 2 as ‘affirmative’ holding that Trial Court rightly dismissed the suit doubting the very Will and dismissed the appeal giving the reasons in paragraph No.19, wherein evidence of witnesses has been extracted and in detail discussion was made in paragraph Nos.20, 22, 23, 24 and also taken note of the principles laid down in the judgment and comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.31 that Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that Will is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and not committed any error and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not read the evidence available on record in proper perspective and only considered portion of the evidence and entire evidence was not considered. The counsel also would vehemently contend that proving of Will is also similar to proving of other documents. The counsel would vehemently contend that Will is a registered document and the same is not surrounded with any suspicious circumstances. 9. The counsel also in support of his argument relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.5921/2015 dated 21.07.2025 in the case of Metpalli Lasum bai (Since Dead) and others vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs. and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.9, wherein discussion was made with regard to registered document of Will is concerned. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that Will is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The Trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that Will is a registered document and thus there is a presumption regarding genuineness thereof. The Trial Court accepted the execution of the Will based on the evidence led before it. As the Will is a registered document, the burden would lie on the party who disputed its existence thereof, who would be defendant-Muthaiah in this case, to establish that it was not executed in the manner as alleged or that there were suspicious circumstances which made the same doubtful. The genuineness of the Will is also beyond doubt because it not only confers the right and title over a part of the land owned by the Testator, M. Rajanna to the plaintiff-Lasum Bai, but it also grants a lion's share of the property to the defendant-Muthaiah and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.10 and 11. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also the reasoning of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, no doubt the Will is a registered Will, the law is also very clear with regard to proving of the Will and the person who propounded the Will has to prove the same that the document came into existence without suspicious circumstances. The Trial Court while considering the claim of the plaintiff, since the plaintiff claims that Will was executed by the person, who is aged about 90 years i.e., Laxmanappa and also the admission is very clear that he was suffering from illness and was unable to understand the facts. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.30, wherein discussion was made that D.W.1 has not placed any evidence which shows that Will was obtained by plaintiff with force and forgery, but the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves the suspicious circumstance regarding execution of the Will by the testator Laxmanappa. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is extracted, particularly the evidence of P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is contrary. The Trial Court in paragraph No.33 taken note of date of death of the testator i.e., 03.01.2012 and also the Will was executed on 19.10.2011 within a span of 2 months 14 days before his death and also taken note of admission and the persons, who were present. The Trial Court in paragraph No.33 taken note of date of death of the testator i.e., 03.01.2012 and also the Will was executed on 19.10.2011 within a span of 2 months 14 days before his death and also taken note of admission and the persons, who were present. Though, P.W.1 claims that he came to know about the very existence of the Will through the attesting witnesses, but attesting witness evidence is contrary. Apart from that, even family members were also present at the time of execution of the Will. Having taken note of all these factors into consideration, in paragraph No.33, comes to the conclusion that Will came into existence under suspicious circumstances. 11. The First Appellate Court also in detail discussed the same in paragraph No.19 and extracted the evidence of witnesses and in paragraph No.20, taken note of age of the testator i.e., 90 years old at the time of execution of the Will and P.W.1 also categorically admitted that testator stopped making transactions well prior to 6 months prior to his death and also taken note of the fact that document came into existence within a span of 2 months of the death of the testator. In paragraph Nos.23 and 24, in detail discussed both very execution of document and also the evidence and considering the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also the principles laid down in the judgment, comes to the conclusion that Will deed is registered, no sanctity shall be attached to it as per the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment as well as the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the propounder, the appellant herein failed to remove the suspicion by adducing cogent evidence. Even in the absence of the defendants’ evidence with regard to the forgery or other evidence, the person, who propounded the Will has to remove any suspicious with regard to the document is concerned and the law is also settled to that effect. 12. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies upon judgment of the Apex Court in passed in Civil Appeal No.5921/2015 dated 21.07.2025 in the case of Metpalli Lasum bai (Since Dead) and others vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs. , the Apex Court while discussing in paragraph No.9 taken note of the registered Will and the Trial Court made an observation that Will is accepted. , the Apex Court while discussing in paragraph No.9 taken note of the registered Will and the Trial Court made an observation that Will is accepted. But, in the case on hand, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court not accepted the case of the plaintiff and the very execution of the Will, since the same is surrounded with suspicious circumstance and sound state of mind of the testator and the very presence of attesting witness. The attesting witness has also put his signature on the instruction of one of the son of the beneficiary of the Will and all these factors were taken note of by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law, since both the factual aspects and the question of law is considered by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and the appellant has not made out any ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC. 13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The regular second appeal is dismissed.