Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- This appeal by special leave is filed by the plaintiffs whose suit no. 140 of 1951 has been dismissed by the High Court at Allahabad in first appeal no.93 of 1954 reversing the decree of the learned Civil Judge Saharanpur who had decreed the suit. The suit was for possession.

2. One Ramanand had two sons - Chamanlal and Ajodhya Prasad. Chamanlal s son is Kailash Chand. The suit was brought by Chamanlal and Kailash Chand. Chamanlal died during the litigation and his heirs have been brought on record. Ajodhya Prasad married one Sonia Devi. They has two issues, son Manakchand and daughter Makhmali. Ajodhya Prasad died in 1928 while he was still a member of the joint family. His son Manakchand died in 1930 when he was barely three years old. Makhmali was given in marriage to one Shanti Prasad, D.W.3. Disputes arose between the widow Sonia Devi and the plaintiffs with regard to family property and they were referred to arbitration in 1931. The arbitrators gave an award which was later filed in Court. Under this award decree the suit property and a large amount of cash were awarded to Sonia Devi absolutely. She obtained possession of the property allotted to her.

3. Makhmali the daughter of Sonia Devi died in 1944 and Sonia Devi died on 14-5-1950.

4. Three years before her death i.e. on the 6th June, 1947 Sonia Devi, who was about 70 years old, executed a Will Ext. A-1 leaving all her property to her brother s widowed daughter-in-law. Ram Katori, and her daughter, Kiran Lata. They are defendants 1 and 2. Ram Katori was given a life interest in the property and after her death Kiran Lata was to be the absolute owner. In the event of her death without any issue the property was to go to her husband. The plaintiffs challenged the Will Ext. A-1 and claimed the property.

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the Will was not intelligently executed by Sonia Devi. In appeal the High Court held that the Will was genuine and intelligently executed by Sonia Devi and, therefore, the disposition in favour of the defendants was quite valid. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the Trial Court s decree and dismissed the suit.

6. The only point urged before us by Mr. Phadke on behalf of the plaintiffs was that the High Court was in error in holding that the Will Ext. A-1 was intelligently executed. He contended that the witnesses, especially, Shanti Prasad, D.W.3 who was examined to show that the Will was validly executed was not a reliable witness, being very much interested in propounding the Will, and secondly that the very contents of the Will, which in his submission was a complicated sort of Will, would go to show that Sonia Devi who was an illiterate Pardanashin lady could not have executed the Will by intelligently understanding the contents thereof. In our opinion, there is no substance in either of these contentions.

7. The Will Ext. A-I was in Urdu. It is simple Urdu which Sonia Devi whose mother-tongue was Hindi could intelligently follow. The Will is attested by as many as five witnesses including Lala Permeshti Dass. D.W.1, Budh Ram, D.W.2 and Sonia s son-in-law Shanti Prasad, D.W.3. The evidence of all these witnesses with regard to the execution of the Will has been accepted by the High Court. According to their evidence the Will was written from a draft, in the presence of Sonia Devi and the attesting witnesses. After the fair Will was prepared it was read over to Sonia Devi. Sonia Devi thereafter suggested a few changes which were accordingly made in the Will and after she had agreed to the contents of the Will, she put her thumb impression on the Will in their presence. So far as the proper execution of the Will itself is concerned, there is no dispute. But the contention is that Sonia Devi could not have intelligently executed the Will. We do not see how it could be said that it was not intelligently executed. Both the Courts have held that the relations between Sonia Devi and the respondents were so