Judgment : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 14.12.2006 by formulating the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the will executed by Mangal Prasad Soni on 25.01.1993 was a suspicious document and did not confer any title to Mukta, is erroneous ?” (Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court) Brief facts:- 2. The suit property was originally owned by Mangal Prasad Soni/Mangal Prasad Sonar, who died on 07.08.1993, which he purchased from one Nathulal on 11.02.1939. Mangal Prasad Soni had two sons Sevak Ram Soni and Gokul Prasad Soni–sole defendant (died and represented through LRs., in this second appeal). Plaintiff-Mukta Soni is the wife of Sevak Ram Soni. 3. Plaintiff-Mukta Soni filed a civil suit on the basis of registered Will deed dated 25.01.1993 (Ex.P/1) executed by her father- in-law namely, Mangal Prasad Soni, in her favour and as such, she is the daughter-in-law of the testator/ Mangal Prasad Soni, and the said Will excludes defendant-Gokul Prasad Soni and he was the son of the testator. It is the case of the plaintiff that Will was executed by her father-in-law on 25.01.1993 who died on 07.08.1993 and after the death of her father-in-law, she made an application for mutation before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on the basis of the said Will, which was objected by defendant – Gokul Prasad Soni and thereafter Municipal Corporation vide its order dated 20.03.1996, directed the plaintiff to get the title decided by the jurisdictional Civil Court leading to the filing of above-stated civil suit for declaration of title and possession. 4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on the basis of Will deed (Ex.P/1) she is the title owner of the suit property and defendant has no right, title over the suit property and defendant’s continuous possession is unauthorized, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and decree for possession and accordingly, decree be granted in her favour. 5. 5. Defendant filed his written statement stating inter-alia that the suit property is the joint family property of his father – Mangal Prasad Soni and he has birth right over the suit property which was never subjected to partition and no Will (Ex.P/1) dated 25.01.1993 has been executed in favour of the plaintiff as Mangal Prasad Soni was mentally unwell since 1985, and he had lost his memory since then. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni did not know how to write in English and he used to sign in Hindi as done in Ex. D/1. It was further pleaded that on 25.01.1993, plaintiff and her husband took Mangal Prasad Soni with themselves from his house citing that they were taking Mangal Prasad Soni for medical treatment and got the Will deed executed fraudulently, as such, the same is suspicious document and it was not executed out of free will. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni used to live with defendant and defendant, his wife and his children used to serve him and there was no reason to exclude the defendant from the share in the suit property. As such, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidences, vide its impugned judgment dated 22.08.1997 disbelieved the Will and dismissed the suit due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and further held that the scribe of the Will was not examined, there was no evidence to show that the contents of the Will were read over to the testator; PW-2 Suresh Chandra Shrivastava, being one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, did not know who drafted the Will and was not aware of whether the medical examination of the testator was performed. It was further held that many of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will were not dispelled by the plaintiff and there was no basis for exclusion of the defendant in the Will and also Will was signed by testator in English as against his usual practice of signing in Hindi. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred appeal before First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 8. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment of the trial Court, the plaintiff had preferred appeal before First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court affirming the order of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No.1264/1999 before this Court under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”) in which this Court set aside the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below and decreed the suit on the ground that Will was a registered document and attesting witnesses of the Will had been examined, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as claimed in the plaint. The legal representatives of Gokul Prasad filed Civil Appeal No.928/2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2025 set aside the judgment and decree of this Court passed in Second Appeal No.1264/1999 and remitted the matter to this Court for fresh consideration on merits and this is how the instant second appeal is taken up for hearing. Submissions of the parties:- 9. Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, would submit that both the attesting witnesses Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) and Jayadaanam (PW-3) have proved the execution and attestation of the Will and there is no suspicious circumstances pleaded and established by the defendants and, as such, Will has been proved strictly in accordance with law. He would also submit that Ex.P/1 being a registered Will, there is a prima facie presumption in favour of the genuineness of the Will. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Sridevi and others v. Jayaraja Shetty and others , [ (2005) 2 SCC 784 ] , Pentakota Satyanarayan and othres v. V. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others , [(2005) 8 SCC 67] , Savithri and others v. Karthyayani Amma and others , [ (2007) 11 SCC 621 ] , Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal , [ (2010) 14 SCC 266 ] and Kalyanswami v. L. Bakthavatsalam , [2020 SCC OnLine SC 584] . 10. Dr. 10. Dr. Rajesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of defendant-Gokul Prasad, would submit that the plaintiff being the propounder of the Will has failed to dispel all the suspicious circumstances held by both the Courts below as the testator used to sign in Hindi and he was on that day i.e. 25.01.1993, seriously unwell so he was taken by the plaintiff and her husband to the hospital on the pretext of treatment and got the Will executed in favour of the plaintiff which was forged. He would also submit that the two Courts below have also pointed out the suspicious circumstances that the due execution and attestation of the Will has not been proved in accordance with Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity “Act of 1925) read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity “Act of 1925”). He would further submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the the two Courts below that the Will has not been executed in accordance with Section 63 (c) of the Act of 1925 as well as Section 68 of the Act of 1872 is pure and simple finding of fact based on evidence available on record and, therefore, on this ground alone the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. To buttress his submission, he would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Raghunath v. State of Haryana and others , [ 1983 (3) SCC 217 ] , Sudama Padney and others v. State of Bihar , [ 2002 (1) SCC 679 ] and Laxmidevamma and others v. Ranganath and others , [ 2015 (4) SCC 264 ] . Hence, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. Discussion and analysis:- 12.Admittedly, the suit property was originally held by Mangal Prasad Soni and the plaintiff is her daughter-in-law and defendant Gokul Prasad was the son of Mangal Prasad, who died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The trial Court had disbelieved the will and dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff which has affirmed by the First Appellate Court on the ground as noticed herein above. The trial Court had disbelieved the will and dismissed the civil suit filed by the plaintiff which has affirmed by the First Appellate Court on the ground as noticed herein above. However, in the first round this Court interfered with and set aside the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and decreed the suit holding that execution and attestation of Will is duly proved, which was set aside by the Supreme Court. 13.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 63 of the Act of 1925 as well as Section 68 of the Act of 1872. Section 63 of the Act of 1925 provides as under:- “ 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 affix his mark 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 affix 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 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.” 14. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides as under:- “ 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides as under:- “ 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 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.” 15. As per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for due execution of a Will; (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the Will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses; and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the Will and each of them should sign the Will in the presence of the testator. 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Meena Pradhan & Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan and Anr., , [ 2023 INSC 847 ] has laid down the principles with regard to due execution of attestation of the Will as under:- “10. xxx xxx xxx xxx i. 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; ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. iii. xxx xxx xxx xxx i. 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; ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied. iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Successin Act, that is to say: (a) The testator shall sign or affix has 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 affixation 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 affix 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; iv. 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; v. 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; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with; vii. 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; viii. 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. ix. 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. ix. 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; x. 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. xi. Suspicious circumstances must be ‘real, germane and valid’ and not merely ‘ the fantasy of the doubting mind’[see:- (2021) 11 SCC 277 { Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa } . 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. 11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.” 17. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh , [ AIR 1955 SC 346 ] has held that two persons who had identified the testator at the time of registration of the Will and had appended their signature at the foot of endorsement by the Sub-Registrar, were not attesting witness as their signatures were not put “animo attestandi”. Similarly, in the matter of M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. H. Venkata Sastri and Sons and others , [ AIR 1969 SC 1147 ] , while considering the meaning of attestation as defined under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity “Act of 1882”) their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that if a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose e.g., to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness and observed in para 8 as under:- “8. Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act gives the definition of the word “attested” and is in these words: — “‘Attested’ in relation to an instrument, means and shall be deemed to have meant attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” It is to be noticed that the word “attested”, the thing to be defined, occurs as part of the definition itself. To attest is to bear witness to a fact. Briefly put, the essential conditions of a valid attestation under Section 3 are : (1) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature; (2) with a view to attest or to bear witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g., to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.” 18. In the matter of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam , [ (2003) 2 SCC 91 ] , the Supreme Court while considering Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 as well as Section 68 of the Act of 1872 has held that mere proof of signature of the testator on the will was not sufficient, the attestation thereof is also to be proved as required by Section 63(c) of the Act of 1925 and observed in para 10 as under:- “ 10. Section 68 of the Evidence Act speaks of as to now a document required by law to be attested can be proved. According to the said Section, a document required by law to be attested 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 an evidence. It flows from this Section that if there be an attesting witness alive capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court, has to be necessarily examined before the document required by law to be attested can be used in an evidence. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the will has got to prove that the will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the will was that of the testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of Evidence Act not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. It is true that Section 68 of Evidence Act not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has to be called for proving due execution of the Will as envisaged in Section 63 although Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that a will has to be attested at least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that a document, which is required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court. In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a will in a Court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a will. To put in other words, if one attesting witness can prove execution of the will in terms of Clause (c) of Section 63, viz., attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attention of a will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of attention of the will by other witness also it falls short of attestation of will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove the attestation of the will by the other witness there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.” Due Execution and Attestation of the Will :- 19. It would be appropriate to notice the contents of the Will dated 25.01.1993 (Ex.P/1 ), which states as under:- 20. The aforesaid Will (Ex.P/1) is a registered Will. It is well settled that mere registration of will would not dispense with requirement of proof of due execution of Will. [See:- Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur , [ 1998 (4) SCC 384 ] ] . As such, despite Will (Ex.P/1) having been a registered Will, the propounder of the Will is required to prove due execution of the Will by examining one or more attesting witness. In the instant case, it has been claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that Jayadaanam (PW-3) and Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) both are the attesting witnesses, who have proved the due execution and attestation of the Will. 21. Jayadaanam has been examined as PW-3, who in his statement before the Court has stated that on 25.01.1993, Mangal Prasad Soni had executed a Will (Ex.P/1) of his suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the Will was executed by Mangal Prasad Soni in the office of Registrar and he (PW- 3) had signed in Ex.P/1, at place ^l ls l^] in the capacity of witness. He has further stated that apart from him, Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) had also signed the Will in the capacity of witness. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that the Will was not read over to the testator of the Will. He has also stated that he and PW-2 both have signed the Will and thereafter testator of the Will has signed the Will (Ex.P/1). However, in the cross-examination he has stated that the Will was not read over to the testator of the Will. He has also stated that he and PW-2 both have signed the Will and thereafter testator of the Will has signed the Will (Ex.P/1). As such, from the statement of PW-3, it is quite vivid that execution of the Will has taken place in the office of the Registrar and both witnesses have firstly signed the Will, thereafter Mangal Prasad Soni is said to have signed the Will. However, the Will (Ex.P/1) also does not recite that Mangal Prasad Soni had signed the Will in presence of above two witnesses. 22. Similarly, other attesting witness Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) has also stated that the Will was executed by Mangal Prasad Soni in the office of Registrar and he had signed the Will (Ex.P/1) in the capacity of witness No.2 and at that time Jayadaanam (PW-3) was also present in the capacity of witness and also signed the Will. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that the testator of the Will/writer of the Will had not signed in his presence and he did not say that the Will was read over to Mangal Prasad and also no inquiry was made by the Sub-Registrar to Mangal Prasad Soni. However, in the cross-examination, he has stated that in his presence the Will was signed by Mangal Prasad in English. 23. Thus, with regard to due execution and attestation of the Will, the following facts are apparent on the face of record:- (i) The Will (Ex.P/1) did not recite that it was signed by testator Mangal Prasad Soni in presence of two witnesses namely Suresh Chandra Shrivastava (PW-2) and Jayadaanam (PW-3) and also sign of the two attesting witnesses PW-3 & PW-2 were appended after the signature of the testator of the Will. (ii) PW-3 has clearly stated that the testator had signed the Will after him and PW-2 signed the Will. Similarly, PW-2 has also stated that the testator had not signed the Will in his presence, though in further cross- examination he has stated that the testator had signed the Will in English in his presence. (iii) The execution of the Will (Ex.P/1) had taken place in the office of Registrar and the Will is the registered document. Similarly, PW-2 has also stated that the testator had not signed the Will in his presence, though in further cross- examination he has stated that the testator had signed the Will in English in his presence. (iii) The execution of the Will (Ex.P/1) had taken place in the office of Registrar and the Will is the registered document. Further, both witnesses have clearly stated that contents of the Will were not read over to Mangal Prasad Soni. 24. From the aforesaid established facts, it is quite evident that the execution of the Will (Ex.P/1) has taken place in the office of Registrar and after Will having been typed; both the witnesses PW-2 & PW-3 have made their signature on the Will and thereafter, the testator is said to have signed the Will and the contents of the Will was not read over to the testator Mangal Prasad Soni. As such, PW-2 & PW-3 have identified the testator at the time of registration of the Will and they have appended their signature in the capacity of identifier for the purpose of registration and, therefore, they cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, said to be attesting witnesses as their signatures were not put animo attestandi, since they (PW-2 & PW-3) have signed firstly on the Will and thereafter, testator is said to have signed the Will as per their (PW-2 & PW-3) statements. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Girja Datt Singh (supra) followed in the matter of M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib (supra) and further in Janki Narayan Bhoir (supra) both the witnesses cannot be said to be attesting witnesses and even otherwise, the contents of the Will were not read over to the testator. As such, the due execution and attestation of the Will (Ex.P/1) has not been proved in accordance with law. 25. As such, the due execution and attestation of the Will (Ex.P/1) has not been proved in accordance with law. 25. Apart from that there are following suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will:- (i) The scribe of the Will was not examined; (ii) There was no evidence to show that the contents of the Will were read over to the testator; (iii) PW-2 Suresh Chandra Shrivastava, being one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, did not know who drafted the will and was not aware whether the medical examination of the testator was conducted; (iv) There was no basis for exclusion of the defendant in the Will; and (v) Will was signed by testator in English as against his usual practice of signing in Hindi, as per vide Ex.D/1. 26. Furthermore, the defendant in his written statement at para 14 has specifically pleaded that in the year 1985, Mangal Prasad Soni became seriously unwell and he was not in his senses and used to behave abnormally and he had lost his memory and also not able to think right or wrong. Taking the advantage of unwellness/mental disability of Mangal Prasad Soni, the plaintiff and her husband had taken Mangal Prasad Soni on 25.01.1993 citing that they were taking him for treatment and they got the forged Will deed executed. Non only this, Mangal Prasad Soni used to sign in Hindi as per Ex.D/1 which the defendant has brought on record. 27. Defendant – Gokul Prasad, has been examined before the Court. In his examination-in-chief, at para 6, he has clearly stated that on 25.01.1993, his father was completely unwell and the plaintiff and his brother (husband of the plaintiff) both had taken Mangal Prasad Soni on the pretext of medical treatment and got the Will deed prepared. However, qua the contents of para 6 of defendant’s statement, no cross- examination has been made except objection raised that no document has been filed by the defendant demonstrating that Mangal Prasad was not physically and mentally fit. 28. Further, the fact that Mangal Prasad Soni was unwell from 1985 to 25.01.1993 and he was taken by the plaintiff and plaintiff’s husband on the pretext of medical treatment on 25.01.1993 has been proved by the defendant and his wife Ramkali. Document Ex.D/1 i.e., sale deed dated 11.02.1939 clearly shows the signature of Mangal Prasad Soni/Sonar in Hindi. 28. Further, the fact that Mangal Prasad Soni was unwell from 1985 to 25.01.1993 and he was taken by the plaintiff and plaintiff’s husband on the pretext of medical treatment on 25.01.1993 has been proved by the defendant and his wife Ramkali. Document Ex.D/1 i.e., sale deed dated 11.02.1939 clearly shows the signature of Mangal Prasad Soni/Sonar in Hindi. This goes to show that the plaintiff being a propounder of the Will (Ex.P/1) has failed to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will, and also failed to prove that the Will (Ex.P/1) is not surrounded with the suspicious circumstances. 29. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. Sridevi (supra), Pentakota Satyanarayan (supra), Savithri (supra), Gopal Swaroop (supra) and Kalyanswami (supra) are clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. Conclusion:- 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the findings of fact recorded by two Courts below that the plaintiff being a propounder of the Will has failed to prove the due execution and attestation of the Will and the Will is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, in my considered opinion, are the correct finding of fact based upon the evidence available on record and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the records and the said finding of fact cannot be interfered in this second appeal. As such, I do not find any merit in the instant second appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost (s). 31. The substantial question of law framed is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 32. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.

Mukta Soni, W/o. Shri Sevak Ram Soni v. Gokul Prasad (died) through Lrs.