ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of reversal passed by the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati, Shillong Bench, this appeal has been filed. The Respondent-Dharam Deo Verma had filed an application in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner at Shillong Under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short "the Act") for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of a Will dated 20th November, 1974, claimed to have been executed by his father late Satyanand Verma. The learned trial Court rejected the application holding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will to be suspicious. In Appeal, the High Court reversed the said verdict by an elaborate judgment.

2. The correctness of the view taken by the High Court has been sought to be assailed by contending that the reversal of the verdict of the learned trial Court overlooks a series of suspicious circumstances which, it is contended, ought to have been taken into account to hold that execution of the Will by the Testator in favour of the present Respondent has not been proved.

3. The suspicious circumstances, according to the Appellant, may be enumerated in seriatim herein under:

(i) That the Will dated 20th November, 1974 excludes all other children of the Testator to the exception of the beneficiary thereof i.e. the Respondent herein. No basis therefor is disclosed.

(ii) In the will, the name of the daughter Vidyalakshmi Devi having been wrongly mentioned as Piplakshmi Devi. This is a glaring fact which raises serious doubts as regards the authenticity of the Will.

(iii) That the Testator Satyanand Verma, was at the relevant point of time, suffering from ill-health which incapacitated him from executing the Will;

(iv) That the application before the learned trial Court under the provisions of the Act was filed after nearly 17 years of the execution of the Will; and lastly

(v) That the attesting witnesses have passed away in the meantime. The execution of the Will centers round the evidence of Shri Krishan Murari, Sub-Registrar, Jansath, Muzaffarnagar District (U.P.), PW-3, who had deposed on commission after nearly two decades of the execution of the Will throwing serious doubts on the credibility of the evidence tendered.

4. It is the submission of Mr. Rana Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that the aforesaid suspicious circumstances had rendered the execution of the Will highly suspect and, in addition, the execution thereof not having been proved as required Under Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is an apparent error in the conclusions recorded by the High Court in reversing the verdict of the learned trial Court.

5. The arguments made on behalf of the Appellant have been refuted by Shri Mahabir Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent, who has submitted that the above circumstances, by themselves, does not render the execution of the Will suspect or unworthy of acceptance. Furthermore, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that all the aforesaid allegedly suspicious circumstances are capable of being reasonably explained on the basis of the materials on record. It is further submitted that Shri Krishan Murari, Sub-Registrar. Jansath, Muzaffarnagar District (U.P.), PW-3, in his deposition on commission has proved the execution of the Will by the attesting witnesses and the same being a registered document, the conclusions recorded by the High Court are perfectly justified and would not require any interference by this Court.

6. We have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.

7. The exclusion of the other children of the Testator and the execution of the Will for the sole benefit of one of the sons i.e. the Respondent, by itself, is not a suspicious circumstance. The property being self-acquired, it is the will of the Testator that has to prevail. Therefore, the question as to whether the Will is a genuine and acceptable document will depend on a consideration of t