Proper execution and attestation of a will must conform to statutory requirements; suspicion surrounding its authenticity must be adequately dispelled by the propounder.

Judgment :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This second appeal has been admitted by this Court on 14.12.2006 by formulating the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court that the will executed by Mangal Prasad Soni on 25.01.1993 was a suspicious document and did not confer any title to Mukta, is erroneous ?”

(Parties hereinafter will be referred as per the ranking given and status shown in the suit before the trial Court)

Brief facts:-

2. The suit property was originally owned by Mangal Prasad Soni/Mangal Prasad Sonar, who died on 07.08.1993, which he purchased from one Nathulal on 11.02.1939. Mangal Prasad Soni had two sons Sevak Ram Soni and Gokul Prasad Soni–sole defendant (died and represented through LRs., in this second appeal). Plaintiff-Mukta Soni is the wife of Sevak Ram Soni.

3. Plaintiff-Mukta Soni filed a civil suit on the basis of registered Will deed dated 25.01.1993 (Ex.P/1) executed by her father- in-law namely, Mangal Prasad Soni, in her favour and as such, she is the daughter-in-law of the testator/ Mangal Prasad Soni, and the said Will excludes defendant-Gokul Prasad Soni and he was the son of the testator. It is the case of the plaintiff that Will was executed by her father-in-law on 25.01.1993 who died on 07.08.1993 and after the death of her father-in-law, she made an application for mutation before the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur on the basis of the said Will, which was objected by defendant – Gokul Prasad Soni and thereafter Municipal Corporation vide its order dated 20.03.1996, directed the plaintiff to get the title decided by the jurisdictional Civil Court leading to the filing of above-stated civil suit for declaration of title and possession.

4. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that on the basis of Will deed (Ex.P/1) she is the title owner of the suit property and defendant has no right, title over the suit property and defendant’s continuous possession is unauthorized, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and decree for possession and accordingly, decree be granted in her favour.

5. Defendant filed his written statement stating inter-alia that the suit property is the joint family property of his father – Mangal Prasad Soni and he has birth right over the suit property which was never subjected to partition and no Will (Ex.P/1) dated 25.01.1993 has been executed in favour of the plaintiff as Mangal Prasad Soni was mentally unwell since 1985, and he had lost his memory since then. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni did not know how to write in English and he used to sign in Hindi as done in Ex. D/1. It was further pleaded that on 25.01.1993, plaintiff and her husband took Mangal Prasad Soni with themselves from his house citing that they were taking Mangal Prasad Soni for medical treatment and got the Will deed executed fraudulently, as such, the same is suspicious document and it was not executed out of free will. It was also pleaded that Mangal Prasad Soni used to live with defendant and defendant, his wife and his children used to serve him and there was no reason to