MANJULA CHELLUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the 1st defendant before the trial Court against whom the first respondent herein had filed original suit for grant of probate or in the alternative letters of administration in respect of a Will dated 16-3-1994. In brief the facts of the present case are as under :

( 2 ) ONE Lawerence DMello had four sons and four daughters. He was permanent resident of Haneesh Villa, Ambedkal, Nitte Village of Karkala Taluk. He died on 27-9-1994 leaving behind the suit schedule property and also other properties. Prior to his death when he was in sound disposing state of mind executed a Will on 16-3-1994 in respect of 24 cents of land consisting of a house in Sy. Nos. 629/1b, and 38 cents in sy. No. 721/7b situate at Nitte Village. Under the Will, the said properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff-Henry D Mello. The said document was also registered before the sub-Registrar, Karkala and the same was executed in the presence of witnesses. No executpr was appointed

( 3 ) THE appellant herein is the first defendant who contested the matter denying the very execution of the Will and so also registration of the Will. He alternatively contended even if such Will was executed it must have been obtained under misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence. The deceased had equal love and affection to wards all his children therefore he could not have disinherited some of his children favouring one son.

( 4 ) BASED on the same, several issues were framed as under :1. Does the plaintiff prove that the deceased Lawrence DMello had duly executed the Will dated 16-3-1994 in a sound disposing state of mind?2. Does the plaintiff prove that deceased had competence to execute the Will in respect of properties shown in the Will?3. Is the plaintiff entitled to grant of probate in the alternative for Letters of Administration?4. To what reliefs?

( 5 ) APPRECIATING the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased executed the Will in favour of the plaintiff when he was in sound disposing state of mind and therefore ordered for issue of probate.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, the present appeal is filed contending that in order to prove the due execution of a Will one must prove due attestation and then due execution.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the appellant mere calling of one of the attestors will not comply with the due attestation and due execution unless and until the said witness speaks to the attestation of the Will. Therefore in view of the so-called attestor-P. W. 2-Kudu Shetty not supporting the case of the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to call upon the other attestor. He further contended that the evidence of Sub-Registrar and the scribe who are examined as P. Ws. 3 and 4 in this case cannot be equated as the evidence of attestor in view of the various decisions relied upon by him hereinafter mentioned. He further contended that the suspicious circumstances which surround the alleged Will Ex. P. 3 are not at all removed, therefore the suit of the plaintiff ought not to have been decreed. The suspicious circumstances according to him are the house mentioned at schedule of Ex. P. 3 Will was very much in existence at the time of execution of Ex. P2 General Power of Attorney, therefore, the question of plaintiff constructing the house would not arise. The other suspicious circumstance is, excluding the appellant herein completely from the inheritance of any property as 62 cents with house was bequeathed to propounder and rest of the properties would go to other two sons and this is very unnatural and therefore the Will Ex. P. 3 is not a genuine one. He relied upon several decisions as follows :

( 8 ) AIR 1955 SC 346 Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh. In this case while dis cussing Section 63 of Succession Act it was held that it cannot be presumed from the mere signatures of two persons appearing at the foot of endorsement

Click Here to Read the rest of this document