The burden of proving a Will lies with the propounder, who must clarify and remove any suspicious circumstances, and the Court must consider the testator's state of mind and health at the time of execution, as well as the reasons for disinheriting legal heirs.

N. KUMAR, J.-This is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, that the defendant has failed to establish the Will propounded by him and consequently decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

3. The subject matter of the suit is 19 items of the agricultural lands and one item of house property, which are more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint (which is hereinafter referred to as "schedule property"). One Venkataraman Hegde was the propositus. He died living behind two sons and three daughters by name Sambayya Hegde, Krishna, Mahadevi, Laxmi and Manji respectively. The daughter Mahadevi is the plaintiff in the suit. The daughter Laxami is the 6th defendant in the suit. Shambayya Hegde had two wives by name Ganapi and Subbi, they are arrayed as defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The daughter Manji is no more, she has left behind three sons by name Paramadevaru, Venkataramana and Shivarama, who are defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 respectively. The dispute between the parties is regarding succession to the property belonging to Krishna, the 2nd son of Venkataraman Hegde. Krishna's wife pre-deceased him, he died issue less. It is in this background his sister Mahadevi filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in all the plaint schedule properties. It is her specific case that Krishna was age dabout 75 years on the date of his death. 7 to 8 years prior to his death, he was suffering from illness, she was also taking care of him. In fact, she took care of him on the last stage. After his death she got obsequies ceremonies performed by her elder brother Sambayya Hegde. The 1st defendant is her sister's son, he is smart. After the death of Krishna, he is claiming right to the schedule property on the basis of the Will. In collusion with the revenue officials, he has got the revenue entries made in his name in respect of the schedule properties. On coming to know the same she has filed her objections. The revenue authorities gave an endorsement to her to approach the Civil Court to agitate her rights. Krishna did not make any Will nor executed any Will. The 1st defendant claims the property under the Will dated 14.02.1970, which is obtained by fraud. The contents of the Will are totally false. The 1st defendant and his relatives have created the said document. The 1st defendant has not taken care of the deceased Krishna at any point of time nor he got any treatment. On 14.02.1970, Kirshna was not in a position to go to Honnavar at all. He was not in a sound state of mind to make a Will. In fact two months prior to his death, he had lost his senses. He had no intention to make any provision for his property. The Will dated 14.02.1970 is not executed by him. The 1st defendant with the active assistance of his relatives Laxminarayana Subbaraya Hegde, Manjunath Subbaraya Hegde and Seetaram Subraya Hegde have created this Will. The author of the Will is said to be one M.M. Sherasappa and N.D. Kamath. Under the Will, the 1st defendant acquired no right to the schedule property. After the death of Krishna, the said Will is registered by the 1st defendant. Merely because the document is registered i.e., not confer any right on him. According to Hindu Law, the property of the brother in the absence of his Class-1 legal heir devolves on his Class-II heirs i.e., brothers and sisters. Therefore, the plaintiff being the sister of deceased Krishna is entitled to 1/4th share. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 73/1973, they colluding with 1st defendant withdrew the same, no enquiry was conducted in the said suit. In fact in the said suit all the legal heirs of Krishna was not included. Therefore, the suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn. The said order do not effect t