( 1 ) APPELLANTS are the sons of late J. Massey. They have felt aggrieved for the grant of letter of administration in favour of respondent No. 1 by the Additional District Judge Vide order dated 1st August, 1996. The main cause of appellants grievance is that the deceased J. Massey never executed the alleged Will. The purported signatures of J. Massey on the alleged will had been forged, even otherwise the alleged `will create suspicion. It is not a genuine `will because in no circumstances the testator could have deprived his natural legal heirs from inheritance in preference to respondent No. 1. Moreover, the `will had not been proved properly. Only one attesting witness Shri Dev Raj was adduced, whose statement could not be relied upon. No explanation has been rendered by the respondent for non-production of the second witness.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge, let us have quick glance to the facts of this case. Smt. Selestine Jacob respondent No. 1 herein was the second wife of deceased J. Massey. She married the deceased in the year 1949, from this wedlock they had been blessed with three children i. e. two sons and one daughter. Deceased J. Massey had five children from his first wife. Similarly, present respondent No. 1 has one son from her first husband. J. Massey died at Delhi on 27th December, 1990. After his death, respondent No. 1 claimed right, title and interest in the immovable property in question on the basis of this `will . To prove her right she set up this unregistered `will dated 6th September, 1977 in her petition under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act alleging therein that deceased lift the immovable property in her favour in exclusion to her other legal heirs.

( 3 ) OBJECTIONS were filed by the present appellants on the grounds enumerated above. They denied the signature of J Massey on the `will . Moreover, according to them the deceased was not the exclusive owner of the property in question. He never used to write his name as J. Massey. He had good relations with his sons rather was not happy with the respondent No. 1. Attesting witness was a procured witness. According to them the `will being a nullity no letter of administration could have been issued on that basis. By the impugned order all objections raised by these appellants were rejected.

( 4 ) MR. M. L. Mehra appearing for the appellants urged that disinheritance of appellants 3, 4 and 5 sons of the deceased from his first wife and appellants No. 1 and 2, sons of the deceased from the present respondent No. 1 create suspicion. Their exclusion from inheritance could not have been without reason. But no reason has been assigned in the ` Will particularly when the fact is that deceased was not happy with respondent No. 1. Deceased preferred TO to live with appellants 1 and 2 rather than with respondent No. 1. Ousting natural heirs from inheritance shows that the `will is forged. Its genuineness is doubtful. In the similar circumstances this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar v. Khazan Singh, AIR 1988 Delhi page 273 held that a `will which disinherit the children in preference to a spouse such a `will has to be looked upon in suspicion. In that case, wife died bequeathing all her properties to her husband in exclusion to her children. This Court held such a `will to be not genuine. In the present case also the deceased not only disinherited his children from his first wife but also his children born from respondent No. 1. Such a `will creates doubt about its genuineness. Beside this property was purchased in 1974 and the `will was executed in the year 1977. He died in December, 1990. Whereas the will saw the light of the day in 1992 almost after two years. For this delay there is no explanation. Hence the `will in question cannot be but a nullity. To prove that the will was not genuine Mr. Mehra placed heavy reliance on the fact that the deceased had not been writing his name as J. Massey. He use