JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant before the Sub Court, Chengannur in A.S. No.20 of 2018, by which the judgment and decree in O.S. No.85 of 2014 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, was reversed. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, claiming1/3 rd share each in the plaint schedule property on the ground that the alleged Will, stated to be executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of the sole defendant, is fabricated. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had forged Will No.173/2013, and the signature of the mother in the Will is fabricated and forged. At the time of execution of the Will, their mother had no testamentary capacity to dispose the property. The execution of the Will was thus denied completely. One of the extenuating circumstances, which, according to the plaintiffs, would test the validity of the Will, is regarding the age of the mother, who was 93 years old at the time of execution of the Will, and that she was suffering from various ailments. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, contending that the Will was validly executed and the suit was not maintainable either on the law or on the facts. The averment in the plaint that the mother was being taken care of by the 1 st plaintiff was denied, and, on the contrary, it was asserted that it was the defendant who had taken care of the mother. The defendant further denied the suggestions regarding the fabrication of the Will and contended that the Will was validly executed as a registered document and was attested by two attesting witnesses. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A14 documents were produced, and PW1 to PW5 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Ext.B1 Will was produced, and DW1 to DW8 were examined. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) were marked as Court Exhibits. Exts.X1 to X5 were marked subject to objection. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following questions for consideration: 1. Whether the Will deed No.173/13 is void as alleged? 2. Whether the testator was having sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the Will deed? 3. Exts.X1 to X5 were marked subject to objection. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following questions for consideration: 1. Whether the Will deed No.173/13 is void as alleged? 2. Whether the testator was having sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the Will deed? 3. Whether the Will No.173/13 is the last Will and testament of the deceased as contended? 4. Whether the plaint schedule property is partible? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition as claimed? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for? 7. Reliefs and costs. 3. As regards the plea of forgery and execution of the Will, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence of DW7 and DW8, found that the Will was validly executed. It was further found that, as regards the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the defendant was successful in dispelling the suspicious circumstances carved out by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.20 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Chengannur, and the Sub Court, by judgment and decree dated 29.1.2019, reversed the findings of the trial court, and the suit was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. While allowing the appeal, the first appellate court extensively went into the question regarding the presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and elaborately reassessed the findings rendered by the trial court to conclude that the plaintiffs were successful in proving the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.85 of 2014 by the first appellate court, the defendant has come up in the present appeal. This Court, while admitting the appeal on 23.2.2023, framed the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the execution of Ext.B1 will has been proved? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court is perverse due to misappreciation of evidence? 4. Heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Haridas , learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri. Whether the execution of Ext.B1 will has been proved? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court is perverse due to misappreciation of evidence? 4. Heard Sri. Jacob P. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P. Haridas , learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Sri. Jacob Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the finding of the first appellate court as regards the presence of suspicious circumstances stems out of total misappropriation of the facts and the law on the point. According to the learned counsel, the basic ground under which the Will was denied was regarding its execution, and that the contention raised was that the Will was a forged document. Once the plaintiffs found that the defendant had succeeded in establishing the execution of the Will, the plea of suspicious circumstances was raised only at the stage of arguments, and such a plea is conspicuously absent in the plaint. The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that the Will stands proved inasmuch as it is validly executed by the testator. The execution stood proven by examining the attesting witnesses DW7 and DW8. It is his further case that the circumstances pointed out by the plaintiffs, which weighed with the First Appellate Court, are circumstances that arose only after the execution of the Will and therefore cannot be relied upon as a prime reason to upset the findings rendered by the trial court. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Jayasree vs. Sindhu Ajayan [ 2025 (4) KLT 326 ]. It is further contended that the plaintiffs, having failed to examine the signatories to Exts.A3, A5, and A7 and the trial court having found against them, the said finding could not have been reversed by the First Appellate Court. 6. Shri. P. Haridas learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the first appellate court is perfectly correct and does not call for interference by this Court. He further pointed out that the testator was suffering from several ailment and did not have the mental capacity to execute the Will. 6. Shri. P. Haridas learned counsel for the respondents contended that the finding of the first appellate court is perfectly correct and does not call for interference by this Court. He further pointed out that the testator was suffering from several ailment and did not have the mental capacity to execute the Will. By referring to the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs along with oral testimonies of PW3 to PW5 he would submit that the mental capacity of the testator is clearly proved by the plaintiffs. It is further pointed out that, even if the will stands proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, the propounder is bound to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Meena Pradhan and others Vs Kamala Pradhan and another [ 2023 (9) SCC 734 ], Kanjiramullakandy Sarada Amma Vs P.T. Sreenivasan Nair [2025 KHC 620], Jarnail Singh and another Vs Bhagwati (Dead) through Legal representatives and others [ 2019 (17) SCC 704 ], Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Lrs and Others Vs Saraswati and others [2022 KHC 6996] and Lilian Coelho and others Vs Myra Philomena Coalho [ 2025 (2) SCC 633 ]. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and perused the judgment rendered by the courts below and the records of the case. 8. To answer the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, one needs to address the findings rendered by the first appellate court as regards the existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of Ext.B1 Will. To put it in short, the suspicious circumstances, according to the first appellate court, are as follows: a. Exclusion of the natural heirs. b. An advocate was the scribe of the Will. c. The scribe and attestors are not within the family. d. The testator had no testamentary capacity to execute the Will since she was suffering from various ailments. e. No special circumstances have been brought out to exclude the plaintiffs who are other natural legal heirs. f. Execution of the Will was kept as a secret. g. Inconsistency between the evidence of two attesting witnesses, especially DW8, when compared with DW7. h. The relationship between the testator and the defendant was not cordial in terms of Exts.A10 to A14 letters. 9. f. Execution of the Will was kept as a secret. g. Inconsistency between the evidence of two attesting witnesses, especially DW8, when compared with DW7. h. The relationship between the testator and the defendant was not cordial in terms of Exts.A10 to A14 letters. 9. The requirement of proving a Will in a court of law requires no further exploration at the hands of this Court, especially in the light of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The requirement under Section 68 is irrespective as to whether there is a dispute or not as regards a Will. On a careful reading of the averments in the plaint, especially paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8, it becomes evident that the thrust of the claim of the plaintiffs was that the Will in question is a forged one and that the mother had no mental capacity to execute the same. Having said so, this Court cannot but notice that the plea regarding suspicious circumstances were in fact formulated by the appellate court on its own. It must be remembered that the plaintiffs knew about execution of the Will and it finds a mention in the plaint as well. However, the averments regarding the presence of suspicious circumstances are conspicuously absent. 10. In Dhanpat vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through legal representatives and Others [ (2020) 16 SCC 209 ], the Supreme Court, considering the nature of proof required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held that if a propounder examines one of the attesting witnesses, the requirement of law under Section 68 is met, and that the further burden is on the person who alleges the execution of the Will. 11. Before this Court proceeds to consider the question whether there exists any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, it must be remembered that, the Supreme Court in Derek A C Lobo and others Vs Ulric MA Lobo(dead) by Lrs and others [2023 SCC Online 1893], held that once the propounder discharged the burden in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and by adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator, the onus is on the contestant opposing to show prima facie the existence of suspicious circumstances. 12. 12. With the above backdrop, this Court will consider the circumstances which in opinion of the first appellate court creates a suspicion on the execution of the Will. The first reason stated by the first appellate court is that the scribe of the Will is a lawyer and therefore there exists a suspicious circumstance. It passes once comprehension as to how the first appellate court could entertain suspicious circumstances regarding the execution of a Will on the ground that the scribe is a practising lawyer. In Mathew Oommen vs. Suseela Mathew [ AIR 2006 SC 786 ], the Supreme Court, considering a Will written by a junior lawyer, found that even a Will written on a plain paper dictated by the senior lawyer and written down by a junior lawyer is a valid one. Therefore, the findings of the first appellate court that merely because the scribe of Ext.B1 Will is an Advocate cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance. 13. As regards the exclusion of the natural heirs of the testator, this Court in Jayasree vs. Sindhu Ajayan [ 2025 (4) KLT 326 ] authored by {ES.J} held that the exclusion of the natural heir is not a ground to hold that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 14. One must remember that the plaintiffs/respondents had no such case before the trial court, as well as before the first appellate court, as now sought to be projected before this Court. On a thorough scrutiny of the oral testimony of PW1, this Court finds that no such plea was raised before the courts below regarding the alleged suspicious circumstances which the first appellate court has now held to exist surrounding the execution of Ext.B1 Will. 15. The finding of the first appellate court that the scribe and the attestors are not within the family is a strong indication of the suspicious circumstances. This Court fails to comprehend as to how the first appellate court could conclude that since scribe and the witness are not within family, the execution of the Will is shrouded with suspicion. In fact, the attesting witness are outside the family is a strong indication of the genuineness of the Will. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents, placing strong reliance on the oral testimony of PW3 to PW5, contended that the mental incapacity of the testator is sufficiently established by the plaintiffs. In fact, the attesting witness are outside the family is a strong indication of the genuineness of the Will. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents, placing strong reliance on the oral testimony of PW3 to PW5, contended that the mental incapacity of the testator is sufficiently established by the plaintiffs. Coupled with Exts.A3 to A5, documents will show that the testator was suffering from various ailments. This Court is afraid that the aforesaid contention is completely misplaced. Testimonies of PW3 to PW5 are clearly interested testimonies which can be of no avail. As regards medical records, the trial court has correctly held that since the plaintiff failed to examine the signatories to the certificate, the same cannot be relied on. 17. Still further, the finding that the testator and the propounder were not in good terms is completely unfounded. The letters relied on by the first appellate court were admittedly executed during 2010. Still further, the veracity of the letters remains unproved. As regards the finding that there exists inconsistency in the oral testimony of the attesting witness, this Court has carefully perused the oral testimony and finds that there exists no inconsistency. 18. In V. Prabhakara vs Basavaraj K (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another [ 2022 (1) SCC 115 ] held that a relief can only be on the basis of the pleadings alone. Evidence is also to be based on such pleadings. The only exception would be when the parties know each others case very well and such a pleading is implicit in an issue. As regards the power of the Appellate court to revisit the findings of the trial court in exercise of the power under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that, in exercising such power, the appellate court has to keep in mind the views of the trial court. If it finds that the trial court is wrong, its decision should be on the reasoning given. A mere substitution of views, without discussing the findings of the trial court by the appellate court is not permissible. While adopting reasoning in support of its findings, the appellate court is not expected to go on moral grounds alone. 19. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the pleading in the plaint is to the effect that the Will is a forged one. While adopting reasoning in support of its findings, the appellate court is not expected to go on moral grounds alone. 19. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the pleading in the plaint is to the effect that the Will is a forged one. But however, in appeal before the first appellate court, the entire gambit of the case was changed by the plaintiffs and the case was converted into one of suspicious circumstances. Certainly, a plea of undue influence and forgery are rather self destructive. If a case of undue influence is made, it cannot be forgery and vice versa. As against the plea of forgery, the defendant succeeded in proving the Will in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 63 of Succession Act, 1925. Further, the Will being a registered document, coupled with the discharge of the burden by the propounder in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act certainly lends credence to the execution of the Will. 20. Therefore, this Court cannot but conclude that the findings rendered by the first appellate court to render the Will as invalid is a self-serving one and that no opportunity was even granted to the defendant to dispel the suspicious circumstances. At any rate, since the so-called suspicious circumstances did not weigh with the trial court, which had the best opportunity to analyse the evidence at the first instance, the first appellate court could not have reversed those findings unless it found such an appreciation to be perverse. On a reading of the judgment of the first appellate court, this Court could not find any such finding of the first appellate court in which, in its opinion, the finding rendered by the trial court was a perverse appreciation of the facts and the evidence adduced before it. Therefore, it is clear that the first appellate court unnecessarily embarked upon the laborious process of finding out whether suspicious circumstances did exist or not in the execution of Ext.B1 Will. The defendant having successfully adduced evidence in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, was entitled to the benefits flowing out of the will. As an upshot of these discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the questions of law framed in the appeal require to be answered in favour of the appellant. The defendant having successfully adduced evidence in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, was entitled to the benefits flowing out of the will. As an upshot of these discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the questions of law framed in the appeal require to be answered in favour of the appellant. It is thus found that Ext.B1 has been properly proved by the defendant and that the first appellate court findings are vitiated by perverse appreciation. Resultantly, the appellant is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, reversing the judgment and decree in A.S. No.20 of 2018 on the files of the Sub Court, Chengannur, by restoring the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur in O.S. No.85 of 2014. Appellant is entitled to costs throughout the proceedings.