M. S. A. Siddiqui, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners, claiming to be the executors of the Will dated 18/5/1986 alleged to have been executed by the testator Sardari Lal Kochhar, have filed the present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act (for short the Act) for the probate.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is the widow and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are sons of the testator. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are daughters of the testator. On 18/5/1986, the testator executed a Will bequeathing the whole of his property movable and immovable to the petitioners. The testator died on 6/8/1986 and the probate petition was moved by the petitioners on 3/7/1987.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has denied the petitioners case in toto. Respondent No. 2 has resisted the probate petition contending that the Will dated 18/5/1986 is a forged document.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, following issues were framed and my findings are recorded against them for the reasons given hereunder:-

1. Whether the Will in question has been duly executed? 2. Relief.

( 5 ) AT the outset, I must make it clear that the respondent No. 2 simply pleaded that the Will in question is a forged document and the defence of the respondent No. 3 is a bare denial of the averments made in the probate petition. None of the respondents has pleaded specific facts or circumstances, which could throw a cloud of suspicion with regard to the valid execution of the Will. However, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaswant Kaur Vs. Amrit Kaur and others (1977) 1 SCR 925 that the burden to prove the genuineness of the Will is heavily cast on the propounder of the Will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that there is no unconscienceability about his acts or the circumstances in which the Will was executed. In R. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B. N. Thimmajamma and others (1959) Supp. 1 S. C. R 426, the Supreme Court has laid down the following propositions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a Will 1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 63 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at that time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document