JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The dispute here centres around a will dated 18-9-1960 executed by a widow, Smt. Chandi Rani, whereby she bequeathed all her moveable and immovable property in favour of Girdhari Lal Munucha, respondent herein. The legatee-propounder is the grandson of the brother of the testatrix, while the appellants herein, who contest the factum and validity of the will, are the sons of her husbands brother.

2. Reversing the finding of the civil judge, Faizabad, the High Court has held that the will was duly executed by Smt. Chandi Rani and is valid.

3. Mr. Iyengar, appearing for the appellants, contends that there were a number of suspicious circumstances surrounding this will, which had not been satisfactorily explained by its propounder. Such circumstances enunciated by the Counsel are :

(1) At the time of making the will, the testatrix was virtually living in confinement under the control of the respondent. She was not free to meet the appellants, nor had she access to any independent advice.

(2) Smt. Chandi Rani must be in failing senses or coma at the time of the alleged execution of the will because -

(a) She died the same day, a few hours of the alleged will; and

(b) the will bears her thumb-mark, though she was proficient enough to write letters in Hindi and sign her name.

(3) The will was not got registered on the very day of its execution, but on the 10th November, 1960, about three weeks after the death of the testatrix.

(4) The will is couched in general terms and is bereft of any recital as to the particulars of the property held by the testatrix.

(5) There is no indication anywhere in the will or in the evidence of the witnesses as to the precise time of its execution.

4. In connection with circumstance (1), counsel has taken us through some letters and other document on record which are said to have been written or executed by Smt. Chandi Rani, deceased. Particular stress was placed on the letter, Ex. 10, dated 14-6-58, written by her to Brij Mohan Lal, appellant. In this letter, she says : "Not a single day passes, when I do not shed tears for 2-4 times. I have come here under great compulsion". She then urges Brij Mohan Lal to meet her at Allahabad, where she would go to attend the death anniversary of a near relation. She further warns the addressee : "people use to read letters here. Do not write anything secret." It is argued that this letter, apart from indicating that she was on very good terms with the appellant whom she regarded as a son, shows that she was very unhappy to live with the respondents as they were keeping her under a sort of surveillance and were making it difficult for her to act or write as she wished.

5. We do not think that it can be reasonably spelled out of the letter, Ex. 10, that she was virtually a prisoner in the hands of the respondent and his brother. She was feeling distressed, because, firstly she was chronically ill and almost an invalid, and secondly, the death of a near relation had accentuated her anguish. Rather, her grievance was that the appellants had neglected her, but Murari and Girdhari had taken her to their place for treatment. The letter, Ex. 10, read as a whole, amounts but to a pathetic entreaty to the appellant, Brij Lal, not to maintain an indifferent attitude towards her, but to meet and help share her woes and worries. Throughout the chain of letters (exhibited in evidence) which Smt. Chandi Rani wrote to Brij Mohan Lal from 1953 to 1959, runs a pathetic note of regret that Brij Mohan Lal was not reciprocating the feelings of natural affection and tenderness which she as his aunt, had for him. She was repeatedly imploring Brij Mohan Lal to meet her and listen to her woes and fears. But Brij Mohan Lal appears to have paid scant heed to her distress calls. He rarely replied her letters. There is nothing to show that in response to her appeal in the letter, Ex. 10