JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the instant regular second appeal. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’ and ‘defendant’. 3. The parties to the lis are closely related. The dispute between them relates to the estate of Smt. Mathi alias Darshanu wife of late Sh. Jagat Ram, who was issueless and breathed her last on 22.11.2000. Genealogy of the parties given below will clarify their relationship inter se and with the deceased owner:- 4. The plaintiff and proforma respondents No. 2 to 4 filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No.1 on the allegations that late Smt. Mathi had 1/4th undivided share in the suit land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 4/5, Khasra No. 88, measuring 0-7 biswas; land comprised in Khata-Khatauni No. 22/37, Khasra No. 112, measuring 1 bigha and 5 biswas; land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.27/42, measuring 36 bighas 19 biswas and the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No.21/35, measuring 47 bighas 2 biswas, as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1989-90, situated at Mauza Petyog, New Shimla, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. It was averred that the mutation No.17 dated 22.09.2001 and Will dated 02.01.1998, alleged to have been executed by late Smt. Mathi, are illegal, void, inoperative and against the rights of the plaintiffs. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, encumbering or changing the nature of any portion of the land in the share of Smt. Mathi, as mentioned above, was prayed for. 5. Notice of the suit was issued to defendant No.1, who filed a detailed written statement controverting the averments made in the plaint in addition to the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the suit as also that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit and that they are trying to take undue advantage over defendant No.1. The claim set up by the plaintiffs was also stated to be highly belated on the ground that they were well aware of the Will executed in favour of the defendant. The Will was also admitted by the plaintiffs throughout to be legal and valid. 6. The claim set up by the plaintiffs was also stated to be highly belated on the ground that they were well aware of the Will executed in favour of the defendant. The Will was also admitted by the plaintiffs throughout to be legal and valid. 6. It was averred that late Smt. Mathi executed the Will as she was satisfied with the services rendered by the defendant during her lifetime and the mutation on the basis of the Will was also stated to have been rightly executed. The plaintiffs wanted to grab the property by exercising undue influence and pressuring the defendant in whose favour the General Power of Attorney had been executed by Smt. Mathi on the basis of which the defendant had executed the sale deeds in favour of different persons. The suit was also stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The decision of Smt. Mathi during her lifetime was also alleged by the defendant and thereafter the defendant is in joint possession on the basis of the Will which was stated to have been executed by Smt. Mathi out of her free volition to avoid any dispute regarding the succession of the property. It was also averred that Smt. Mathi was keeping good health and sound mind at the time of executing the gift deed and it was denied that the share of Smt. Mathi did not revert, as alleged in the plaint. The claim of the plaintiffs was stated to be false and, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement in which the averments made in the plaint were reasserted and reafÏrmed. The knowledge regarding execution of the Will or its admission on behalf of the plaintiffs was denied. The witnesses of the Will were stated to be a fraud of the defendant. It was averred that some impostor was produced before the Registrar at the time of registration of the alleged Will and the mutation was also stated to have been sanctioned without the notice to the plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaintiffs were also looking after deceased Smt. Mathi during her lifetime. 8. It was averred that some impostor was produced before the Registrar at the time of registration of the alleged Will and the mutation was also stated to have been sanctioned without the notice to the plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaintiffs were also looking after deceased Smt. Mathi during her lifetime. 8. It is worthwhile to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for leading additional evidence was also filed by the plaintiffs. The learned lower Appellate Court issued notice to the defendant and summoned the record of the trial Court and after hearing the parties dismissed the aforesaid application on 07.07.2017. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court on 11.08.2008 framed the following issues: 1. Whether the Will dated 2.1.1998 executed by Smt. Mathi is legal and valid? OPD. 2. Whether the mutation No.1017 dated 22.9.2001 entered on the basis of aforesaid Will is illegal,null and void, as alleged? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction, as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own acts, conduct and deeds? OPD. 7. Whether the present suit is not within the limitation? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD. 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 10. Relief.” 10. After recording the evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 28.02.2009. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which too, met with the same fate. 12. It is against the judgment and decree that was passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 07.07.2017 that the plaintiffs have preferred the instant appeal. 13. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as aforesaid, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which too, met with the same fate. 12. It is against the judgment and decree that was passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 07.07.2017 that the plaintiffs have preferred the instant appeal. 13. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 17.07.2019 by framing the following substantial question of law: “Whether the findings of the Courts below with respect to execution and attestation of the ‘WILL’ allegedly executed by late Smt. Mathi in favour of respondent No.1 Krishan Gopal in view of the evidence oral as well as documentary are perverse and not supportable by the evidence?” 14. It also needs to be noticed that the plaintiff during the pendency of this appeal had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to lead additional evidence with respect to the Will dated 23.03.1991 being CMP No.2879 of 2019 which application at the time of admission of the appeal was directed to be heard along with the main appeal. 15. However, before the appeal could be heard, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC came to be filed by one of the legal heirs of Udi Ram seeking his impleadment as plaintiff being CMP No.17468 of 2024 which application vide order dated 20.12.2024 was ordered to be heard along with the main appeal. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and meticulously gone through the records of the case. 17. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the necessary statutory provisions as contained in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which read thus:- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act “68. 17. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the necessary statutory provisions as contained in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which read thus:- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence; Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act “63. Execution of unprivileged wills.- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules- (a) The testator shall sign or shall afÏx his marks to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) the signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or afÏx his mark to the will or has been some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” 18. From a conjoint reading of the provisions extracted above, it is evidently clear that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator signing or afÏxing his mark on the Will or has seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature or mark or his signature or the signature of such other person and that each of the witnesses has signed the Will in the presence of the testator. Section 68 of the Evidence Act is against the use of a Will in evidence unless one attesting witness has been examined to prove the execution. 19. The legal position in matters of Will was laid down by the three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and others AIR 1959 SC 443 and thereafter approved by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee and others AIR 1964 SC 529 and thereafter reiterated in a number of cases including three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others (1977) 1 SCC 369 , wherein the legal position was succinctly summed up in the following manner:- “10. “There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in R. Venkatachala Iyengar v.B.N. Thirnmajamma & Others.( AIR 1959 SC 443 ). The Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar J., laid down in that case the following propositions : 1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the ease of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the ease of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by section 63 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has .been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death o[ the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surround- ed by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstance that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution' of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.” 20. As observed above, the requisites for proving the Will are well established and they were reiterated by three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kumar and others vs. Sharanabasappa and others (2021) 11 SCC 277 which judgment in turn was considered along with other judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan and others vs. Kamla Pradhan and another (2023) 9 SCC 734 and thereafter the following principles were culled out: “10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 ( three Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, ( 1994) 5 SCC 135 (three Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, ( 2003) 2 SCC 91(two Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (threeJudge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (three- Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will: 10.1. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him; 10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. 10.3. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say: (a) The testator shall sign or afÏx his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or afÏxation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will; (b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary; (c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or afÏx his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures; (d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required; 10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined; 10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; 10.6. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with; 10.7. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; 10.8. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. 10.9. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. 10.9. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; 10.10. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation. 10.11. Suspicious circumstances must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely ‘the fantasy of the doubting mind’ 1. Whether a particular feature would qualify as ‘suspicious’ would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.” 21. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is not the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that both the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration the testimonies of the witnesses or the documents that have come on record. However, he would argue that there is nothing on record to show that how the original Will Ext. DW-1/A/A has come on record. Such contention is clearly misconceived given the fact that it is the plaintiff, who in his cross-examination while appearing in rebuttal has admitted the execution of the original Will Ext. DW-1/A/A. However, an admission about the making of the Will would not amount to the genuineness of the Will. 22. DW-1/A/A has come on record. Such contention is clearly misconceived given the fact that it is the plaintiff, who in his cross-examination while appearing in rebuttal has admitted the execution of the original Will Ext. DW-1/A/A. However, an admission about the making of the Will would not amount to the genuineness of the Will. 22. In this background, one would then essentially have to refer to the plaint to ascertain the precise grievance in the case set up by the plaintiff. 23. Adverting to the plaint, it needs to be noticed that it is the case of the plaintiff that Smt. Mathi had never executed any Will in favour of anybody-else because at the time when the Will is alleged to have been executed, she was not keeping good health and, because of advanced age, she was not of sound mind and capable of understanding her good or bad. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant either fabricated the Will or got the same executed by exercising undue influence and, therefore, the Will was a forged document which did not affect the rights of the plaintiff to inherit the share of the deceased. 24. As regards the undue influence, the pleadings do not comply with the provisions as required under Order 6 Rule 4 of CPC for the execution of the Will, which read as under: “ 4. Particulars to be given where necessary .- In all cases in which the party pleadings relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading.” 25. It would be noticed that apart from using the word like “undue influence”, there are no specific particulars set forth in support of such contention. It is more than settled that a vague or general plea can never serve this purpose and the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence and the unfair advantage obtained by the other. 26. It is more than settled that a vague or general plea can never serve this purpose and the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence and the unfair advantage obtained by the other. 26. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhas Chandra Das Mushib vs Ganga Prosad Das Mushib and others AIR 1967 SC 878 wherein it was held as under:- “10. Before, however a court is called upon to examine whether undue influence was exercised or not, it must scrutinize the pleadings to find out that such a case has been made out and that full particulars of undue influence have been given as in the case of fraud. See Order 6 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This aspect of the pleading was also given great stress in the case of Ladli Prasad Jaiswal (1964) 1 SCR 270 : ( AIR 1963 SC 1279 ) above referred to. In that case it was observed (at p. 295 of SCR): (at p. 1288 of AIR): “A vague or general plea can never serve this purpose; the party pleading must therefore be required to plead the precise nature of the influence exercised, the manner of use of the influence, and the unfair advantage obtained by the other.” “25. There was practically no evidence about the domination of Balaram over Prasanna at the time of the execution of the deed of gift or even thereafter. Prasanna, according to the evidence, seems to have been a person who was taking an active interest in the management of the property even shortly before his death. The circumstances obtaining in the family in the year 1944 do not show tht the impugned transaction was of such a nature as to shock one’s conscience. The plaintiff had no son. For a good many years before 1944 he had been making a living elsewhere. According to his own admission in cross-examination, he owned a jungle in his own right (the area being given by the defendant as 80 bighas) and was therefore possessed of separate property in which his brother or nephew had no interest. There were other joint properties in the village of Parbatipur which were not the subject matter of the deed of gift. There were other joint properties in the village of Parbatipur which were not the subject matter of the deed of gift. It may be that they were not as valuable as the Lokepur properties. The circumstances that a grandfather made a gift of a portion of his properties to his only grandson a few years before his death is not on the face of it an unconscionable transaction. Moreover, we cannot lose sight of the fact that if Balaram was exercising undue influence over his father he did not go to the length of having the deed of gift in his own name. In this he was certainly acting very unwisely because it was not out of the range of possibility that Subhas after attaining majority might have nothing to do with his father.” 27. It shall be apt to make reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Afsar Shaikh and another vs Soleman Bibi and others AIR 1976 Supreme Court 163, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “While it is true that ‘undue influence’, ‘fraud’, ‘misrepresentation’ are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, they are in law distinct categories, and are in view of Order 6, Rule 4, read with Order 6, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required to be separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and precision. A general allegation in the plaint, that the plaintiff was a simple old man of ninety who had reposed great confidence in the defendant, was much too insufÏcient to amount to an averment of undue influence of which the High Court could take notice, particularly when no issue was claimed and no contention was raised on that point at any stage in the trial court, or, in the first round, even before the first appellate court.” 28. It needs to be noticed that both the learned Courts below have taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence that has come on record holding the Will to be genuine and the last Will of Smt. Mathi Devi. 29. It also needs to be noticed that the plaintiffs in support of their contention that the Will is shrouded by grave suspicious circumstances had raised the following points: a) Copy of the application allegedly moved before the Sub Registrar to visit the house of Sh. 29. It also needs to be noticed that the plaintiffs in support of their contention that the Will is shrouded by grave suspicious circumstances had raised the following points: a) Copy of the application allegedly moved before the Sub Registrar to visit the house of Sh. Anokhi Ram to register the will has not been produced; b) receipt of fee deposited for the visit of the Sub-Registrar to the house of Sh. Anokhi Ram has not been brought on record; c) the legatee (defendant) took active part in execution of the will; d) major discrepancies exist in the statements of DWs 1, 3 and 5 to 7; e) litigation was pending between Smt. Mathi and Sh. Anokhi Ram; f) serial number of the papers on which the will was allegedly scribed is not in seriatim; g) the testatrix was an old lady of feeble mind not keeping good health; h) Smt. Mathi was not of sound disposing mind when the will was allegedly executed by her; i) Sh. Prabhu Ram (writer of the will) has not been examined; j) No endorsement has been made on the will Ext. DW-1/A/A that the same was registered at the house of the executant; k) the witnesses examined by the defendant being his relatives are interested ones; l) 02.01.1998 was not a working day as stated by DW-7; m) it is not clear as to why the Sub-Registrar etc.were present on a non-working day in the ofÏce and what they were doing; n) no reason has been assigned in the will Ext.DW-1/A/A as to why the earlier will dated 23.03.1991 executed by Smt. Mathi in the name of Sh. Anokhi Ram was cancelled; o) Smt. Mathi was residing with them (plaintiffs) as they were having cordial relations with her; p) no reason has been given in the will as to why they (plaintiffs) were dis-inherited; q) original will was not shown to the witnesses at the time of their examination in the Court; r) no evidence has been led by the defendant/respondent to establish the mental and physical condition of testatrix at the time of alleged execution of the will; s) the will was not read over and explained to Smt. Mathi by the scribe; t) it does not satisfy the judicial conscience; u) the will is a result of undue influence, coercion etc; and v) it was not attested by two witnesses as per law because of which the same is required to be ignored. 30. The learned first Appellate Court has meticulously discussed all these points in great detail and thereafter rendered the findings. Earlier to that, the entire evidence that has been produced on record has been elaborately set out and discussed and it is only thereafter firm findings have been rendered to the effect that the Will assailed by the plaintiffs is not shrouded by suspicious circumstances and the same has been duly proved on record. 31. It has come on record that on 02.01.1998 two Wills were executed at the same place and registered by the same Registrar, scribed by same scribe and witnessed by same witnesses. The Will Ext. DW-1/B was executed by Shri Anokhi Ram in favour of his family members including plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the defendant. 32. The other Will Ext. DW-1/A/A was executed by Smt. Mathi Devi in favour of the defendant. As observed above, both the Wills were registered in the house of the defendant since both Shri Anokhi Ram and Smt. Mathi Devi were residing together. The Wills were scribed by Shri Prabhu Ram, document writer and witnessed by Shri Nareshwar Singh Rohal (DW-5) and Shri Deepak Rohal (DW-6) and the executants were identified by the Halqua Numberdar Shri Padam Chand (DW-7). 33. The plaintiff while appearing as his own witness as PW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that he had not challenged the Will executed by his father Shri Anokhi Ram since the same was correct. 33. The plaintiff while appearing as his own witness as PW-1 during his cross-examination admitted that he had not challenged the Will executed by his father Shri Anokhi Ram since the same was correct. However, subsequently while appearing in rebuttal as PW-1R, the plaintiff took a complete somersault and stated that Will Ext.DW-1/B did not bear the signatures of Anokhi Ram and he had challenged the same before this Court. But then the plaintiff did not choose to place any material on record to show that the legality and validity of the Will Ext. DW-1/B executed by Shri Anokhi Ram had been questioned by him before any Court of law. As a matter of fact, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to have questioned the Will Ext. DW-1/B as admittedly he was one of the beneficiaries under it. 34. The learned Courts below committed no error by concluding that once the plaintiffs themselves have admitted the Will Ext. DW-1/B to be legal, valid and genuine, it was too late in the day for them to agitate that other Will Ext. DW-1/A/A was invalid or shrouded by suspicion given the fact that it had been scribed, witnessed and identified by same set of people. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to place on record any proof to show that Smt. Mathi Devi and Shri Anokhi Ram were living with them. Rather, it has come on record in the testimony of plaintiff Madan Gopal that he had instituted a suit against defendant and Anokhi Ram which was dismissed by the Court. 35. It has further come on record that Anokhi Ram had infact lodged a complaint dated 30.03.1995 Ext. DX-6 with the Director General of Police wherein he had mentioned that Smt. Mathi Devi, who was residing with him was threatened by plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and their respective wives. 36. As regards the relationship of the defendant with Shri Anokhi Ram and Smt. Mathi Devi, there is ample evidence to establish that Smt. Mathi Devi and Shri Anokhi Ram were residing with the defendant, who was looking after and serving them and had even performed their obsequies ceremonies after their death. 36. As regards the relationship of the defendant with Shri Anokhi Ram and Smt. Mathi Devi, there is ample evidence to establish that Smt. Mathi Devi and Shri Anokhi Ram were residing with the defendant, who was looking after and serving them and had even performed their obsequies ceremonies after their death. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to create unnecessary suspicion and is required to satisfy the conscience of the Court by according clear, cogent and convincing reasons that there would have been no occasion for Smt. Mathi Devi to have excluded him in the Will. Furthermore, taking into consideration the relationship of the testatrix with the plaintiffs, no reason for their exclusion was required to be recorded in the Will. 37. As observed above, the filing of the suit against Shri Anokhi Ram and thereafter threatening him along with Smt. Mathi Devi are reasons enough to exclude the plaintiffs in the Will. 38. It is vehemently argued by Shri Gian Chand Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant that Smt. Mathi Devi was not in sound disposing mind till her death. However, even this contention is without any substance as the Will in question was executed on 02.01.1998, whereas, Smt. Mathi Devi died nearly three years thereafter on 20.11.2000. If Smt. Mathi Devi had not been in sound disposing mind, then she would not have executed the sale deeds Exts. D-2 to D-5 which were executed by Smt. Mathi Devi in favour of different persons through her attorney i.e. defendant in the months of October and November, 1998. 39. From the execution of these documents, two things are absolutely clear: (i) that Smt. Mathi Devi was in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will; (ii) that Smt. Mathi Devi reposed full confidence in the defendant and had cordial relations with him. 40. It also needs to be noticed that even though the Will Ext. DW-1/A/A came to be executed and registered on 02.01.1998 but the plaintiff kept mum for over five years and filed the suit only on 13.09.2006 i.e. after lapse of five years and, thus, was clearly time barred. 41. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that since mutation had not been incorporated in the revenue record, therefore, he did not come to know about the execution of the Will. 41. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that since mutation had not been incorporated in the revenue record, therefore, he did not come to know about the execution of the Will. This clearly is a cock and bull story set up by the plaintiff for the simple reason that execution of the Will and thereafter devolution of the shares in the property therein is a physical act. The plaintiff very well knew that he had been excluded from the Will when he executed the mortgage deed dated 14.12.2001 Ext. DW-1/G. Interestingly, the plaintiff himself is an attesting witness to the sale deed executed by the defendant vide Ext. DX-1 and would still have to believe this Court that he had no knowledge of the execution of the Will. This assumes importance when the family members of the plaintiff executed mortgage deed dated 01.02.2003 Ext. DX-7. Needless to state that even the sale deed executed on 22.09.2003 Ext. Z-1 clearly makes a reference to the entry of mutation. 42. That apart, mutation itself cannot be considered to be a document of title and is entered solely for the fiscal purpose in the revenue record. 43. The plaintiffs have set up a claim of intestate succession and, therefore, they very well knew that as per the case set up by them they would be the beneficiaries of atleast some share of Smt. Mathi Devi and once that did not happen, they would have surely found and thereafter known the reason for the same. 44. Apart from the above, the claim of the plaintiffs feigning ignorance regarding the execution of the Will, to say the least, is a blatant lie. The plaintiffs had been arrayed as proforma respondents in RFA No. 96/97 before this Court in case titled Smt. Mathi Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh which was pending adjudication before this Court. During the pendency of the RFA, Smt. Mathi Devi expired. An application dated 23.12.2000 Ext. DW-1/F was filed before this Court under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC to implead defendant-respondent Krishan Gopal as legal heir of deceased-appellant (Smt. Mathi). 45. In the application, it was pleaded that Smt. Mathi had executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant (Krishan Gopal) on 02.01.1998 and on the basis of the Will he had inherited her estate. 45. In the application, it was pleaded that Smt. Mathi had executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant (Krishan Gopal) on 02.01.1998 and on the basis of the Will he had inherited her estate. The application was duly allowed by this Court on 03.09.2001 and Krishan Gopal- defendant was joined as party-appellant in place of late Smt. Mathi. Interestingly, the plaintiffs did not contest this application by claiming that Smt. Mathi during her lifetime had not executed any Will or that they too were her legal heirs on the basis of intestate succession. 46. In such circumstances, it is too late in the day for the plaintiff to claim that no Will was executed by late Smt. Mathi in favour of the defendant. 47. It needs to be reiterated that the plaintiffs throughout the proceedings have tried to feign ignorance of the Will Ext. DW-1/A/A. The execution whereof had already been brought to their notice in the application filed before this Court by the defendant in RFA No. 96/97 on 23.12.2000 itself. In addition thereto, the plaintiffs are deemed to have acquired knowledge regarding the execution of the Will from various mortgage and sale deeds executed by the parties from time to time as already mentioned above. Yet, the plaintiffs chose to file the suit after lapse of more than five years from the date of passing of the order by this Court on 03.09.2001 in RFA No. 96/97 and thus was clearly barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act which provides limitation of three years from the order dated 03.09.2001, whereas, in the instant case, the suit came to be filed only on 13.09.2006 and was thus clearly time barred. 48. The learned counsel for the appellant would argue that there should have been prominent participation of the beneficiaries under the Will in the matter of its execution. However, what has been lost sight of the fact by the plaintiff is that in the Will executed by Shri Anokhi Ram, on the said date, the plaintiffs themselves were the beneficiaries. 49. Even otherwise, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the mere presence of executor or any beneficiary under a Will at the time of the execution of the Will ipso facto will not invalidate it or is sufÏcient to cast suspicion on the execution of the Will. 49. Even otherwise, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the mere presence of executor or any beneficiary under a Will at the time of the execution of the Will ipso facto will not invalidate it or is sufÏcient to cast suspicion on the execution of the Will. At any rate, it is for the person raising the same to prove that it was not a mere presence in the vicinity and it was capable of influencing the testator/testatrix. (Refer: Derek A.C. Lobo and Others vs. Ulric M.A. Lobo (Dead) by LRs. and Others 2024 (4) Scale 479 : 2023 INSC 1093 ). 50. As a last ditch effort, the learned counsel for the appellant would then argue that the scribe of the Will has not been examined. 51. However, even this contention is without substance as it is not a legal requirement to examine the scribe and at any rate the non-examination of the scribe would after the Will cannot be a ground to discard the Will since it had been proved by examining the attesting witnesses. In taking this view, I am fortified and supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) through LRS. and others vs. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and others (2003) 8 SCC 537 . 52. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be perverse. 53. The substantial question of law, as referred to above, is answered accordingly. 54. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated here-in-above, the appeal sans merit and deserves dismissal and accordingly the same is dismissed. CMP No. 2879 of 2019. 55. The plaintiff has filed this application for leading additional evidence on the ground that since the case set up by the plaintiff is that the Will propounded by the defendant has been manipulated with the help of a witness namely Hira Singh, who was working at the relevant time in the revenue department and the Sub Registrar, who is alleged to have registered the Will, was under the influence of the said witness and related to the respondent. Therefore, the Will dated 23.03.1991 executed by late Smt. Mathi Devi in favour of Shri Anokhi Ram, duly registered in the ofÏce of the Sub Registrar, Shimla and Will allegedly executed by Smt. Mathi Devi in favour of Krishan Gopal be referred to the Handwriting Expert with respect to signatures of Smt. Mathi Devi on the said document. 56. The application was contested by the defendant by filing reply wherein it has been averred that Smt. Mathi Devi alias Darshanu had filed Reference No. 96/97 before this Court against the award passed by the learned District Judge and on account of death of Shri Anokhi Ram, his sons S/Sh. Krishan Gopal, Madan Gopal and Ram Gopal i.e. defendant and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were brought on record as respondents No. 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). Lateron, when Smt. Mathi Devi died on 20.11.2000, the replying respondent Krishan Gopal filed an application seeking his impleadment on the basis of the registered Will dated 02.01.1998 which application was registered as CMP(M) No. 143/2001 and was duly allowed by this Court and consequently respondent -Krishan Gopal was brought on record in place of late Smt. Mathi Devi and no objections whatsoever have been filed by the plaintiffs till date against that order. At the same time, it is averred that Smt. Mathi Devi had executed a registered Will of her own accord and free will in favour of the replying respondent as earlier Will in favour of his late father Shri Anokhi Ram had been cancelled. 57. It is settled law that report of Handwriting Expert is a weak type of evidence and the Courts do not generally consider it as offering "conclusive" proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. 58. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it needs to be noticed that there were bound to be some variations in the signatures of late Smt. Mathi Devi in the Will that was executed on 23.03.1991 to the one Ext. 58. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it needs to be noticed that there were bound to be some variations in the signatures of late Smt. Mathi Devi in the Will that was executed on 23.03.1991 to the one Ext. DW-1/A/A which had been executed on 02.01.1998 given the fact that after a lapse of seven years when Smt. Mathi Devi, who was more than 78 years and appears to have just learnt to sign her name, such an effort on the part of the plaintiffs only reflects upon their desperation to have the Will discarded and disbelieved without there being any substantial reason or ground for the same. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed. CMP No. 17468 of 2024. 59. The applicant/proposed plaintiff has filed this application seeking his impleadment as plaintiff. 60. Since, the Court has already dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, therefore, this application seeking impleadment need not gone into and has rather rendered academic and is disposed of accordingly. 61. Miscellaneous Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.