A propounder of a will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence.

( 1 ) AJIT Singh, appellant challenges the judgment and order of the District Judge, Delhi dated 1st March, 1977 dismissing his application for the grant of Probate of the Will dated 22nd October, 1962 alleged to have been executed by his father Arjan Singh.

( 2 ) ON 17th May, 1972 the appellant filed an application for the grant of Probate alleging that his father Arjan Singh had executed his last will and Testament on 22nd October, 1962 bequeathing Plot No. I-88a, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and one Shop No. 119, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to him, that Arjan Singh died on 12th April, 1963, that the Will was attested by the witnesses.

( 3 ) NAND Singh, one of the brothers of the appellant in his written statement pleaded that his father never executed any Will during his life time, he died intestate on 12th April, 1963, that the said Will was a forged document, that in 1965 the appellant along with his mother and sister Kaushalaya Devi had filed a suit for declaration against the other heirs of Arjan Singh alleging that Plot No. 1-88a, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi measuring 200 sq. yards was owned by his father Arjan Singh exclusively, that the name of Nand Singh was entered in the sale deed dated 12th October, 1962 as a benamidar, that on the death of Arjan Singh all his heirs namely, widow three sons and four daughters became joint owners of the said plot of land in equal shares, that the suit was dismissed on 5th September, 1966 by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi holding that Arjan Singh and Nand Singh were owners of the plot in equal shares as per sale deed dated 12th October, 1962. Nand Singh respondent has further pleaded that during the trial of the civil suit the appellants had made a statement on oath on 9th March, 1966 that his father Arjan Singh never executed any Will, that after the death of his father he (Nand Singh) filed an application in December. 1966 before the Managing Officer, Jamnagar House, New Delhi, that shop No. 119. Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi allotted to Arjan Singh be transferred to all his legal heirs, that the appellant by his application dated 12th March, 1969 for the first time made an application before the Managing Officer that Arjan Singh had executed the Will dated 22nd October, 1962, that on the basis of the appellant s statement in the civil court that his father had left no Will, the Managing Officer and all other authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 held that there was no Will of Arjan Singh and, therefore, the said shop was ordered to be transferred to the legal heirs in equal shares.

( 4 ) INREPLICATION the appellant pleaded that the Will dated 22nd October, 1962 of Arjan Singh came to his knowledge during the proceedings before the Managing Officer, Jamnagar House, New Delhi that one Banarsidass, with whom the Will was deposited by the deceased, placed the case before the Managing Officer.

( 5 ) THE appellant as Public Witness 3 has deposed that his father had executed a Will, that it was scribed by Manohar Lal, clerk of Shri Bhagwan Dass, Advocate that Banarsi Dass and Bhagat Ram attested the Will in the presence of his father, that the Will was executed on 22nd October, 1962 and his father had died on 12th April, 1963, that the Will was handed over to Banarsi Dass for safe custody. In other words the appellant during the trial of the Probate proceedings deposed that he was present at the time of execution of the said Will. In replication he had pleaded that he came to know of the Will when the same was placed before the Managing Officer, New Delhi by Banarsi Dass. Thus there is contradiction between the plea and the evidence led by the appellant before the trial court.

( 6 ) NAND Singh in his written statement specifically challenged the genuineness of the Will but still the appellant did not take steps to prove the same with a view to clear the conscience of the court. It has not been proved as to wh