The execution of a Will should be considered valid if it is proved to be genuine and executed by a person of competent understanding and free will, and the burden of proving undue influence lies on the party alleging it.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22. 3. 1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Probate Case No. 566/ 94 dismissing the petition for grant of probate/letter of administration in respect of the estate of late Smt. Ishar Devi widow of late Shri Deena Nath, with the Will annexed dated 22. 9. 1978.

( 2 ) LATE Smt. Ishar Devi, widow of late Shri Deena Nath Dewan was the owner of house No. D-3, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. She had three sons and three daughters. Shri N. N. Dewan, the elder son of Smt. Ishar Devi had pre-deceased her leaving behind his widow, Smt. Damyanti Devi and a daughter, Smt. Renu Chaudhary. She was survived by two sons, namely, Shri Vasheshar Nath and Shri Vishwa Nath and three daughters, namely, Smt. Shiela Rani, Smt. Shanti Rani and Smt. Shakuntala Rani. It is the case of the petitioner that prior to her death, late Smt. Ishar Devi had executed a registered Will dated 22. 9. 1978 in favour of her grandson Shri Bhushan Kumar Dewan s/o Shri Vishwa Nath. It was also alleged that Shri I Bhushankumar Dewan in favour of whom the Will was executed was the only male I child in the family, since Shri N. N. Dewan had only one daughter, namely - Smt. I Renu Chaudhary and Shri Vashesar Nath had only one daughter, namely - Mrs. Nisha Sawhney. Basing the claim on the said registered Will Shri Bhushan Kumar Dewan filed the petition under Section 226 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate/ letter of administration in respect of the estate left behind by the deceased Smt. Ishar Devi. Respondents 6 to 8, who are the daughters of the executrix, filed no objection as against the aforesaid petition seeking for grant of probate/letter of administration and instead they filed affidavits that the Will was genuine and they had no objection for grant of probate/letter of administration as sought for. The affidavits filed by the aforesaid respondents are on record. During the trial the appellant examined four witnesses whereas Shri Vasheshar Nath, one of the objectors examined six witnesses wheres Smt. Damyand Devi, widow of Shri N. N. Dewan us examined herself as RW 3 /1. The aforesaid probate proceeding was thereafter taken up for arguments and upon hearing the Counsel, the Additional District Judge by he his impugned judgment and order dated 22. 3. 1997 dismissed the petition. Ag- vo grieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the present appeal has been filed, as

( 3 ) THE Additional District Judge while dismissing the aforesaid petition held not that the circumstances under which the Will came into existence were suspicious. It was also held that the Will was unnatural as the same disinherited the normal course of inheretance / succession and the legal heirs i. e. the sons and daughters were deprived of the property as the property was bequeathed to the grandson. It was also held by him that the Will was thumb marked when Smt. Ishar Devi could sign in Gurmukhi and that although the Will was typed on 1. 6. 9. 1998, the date of and execution and registration was 22. 9. 1978. It was also held that the testator was very ill and was of feeble mind at the time of execution of the Will and, therefore, the circumstances under which the said document came into existence were of suspicous. nature,

( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for the appellant submitted that while coming to the is aforesaid conclusion the Trial Court only considered the evidence of respondents witnesses and did not at all considered the evidence of the petitioner s witnesses including a Doctor whose evidence proved the mental capacity of testatrix. It was submitted that the Will was prepared and executed when the testatrix was in sound disposing. mind. It was also submitted that the Trial Court erred in law and also on facts in holding that the circumstances under which the Will was executed were of suspicious nature and that the Will was unnatural. In support of his submissions the learned Counsel relied upon cer