The burden of proof lies on the propounder to establish due execution and the testator's sound disposing mind. Minor contradictions in witness testimony do not necessarily cast doubt on the will's execution.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. On 20.03.2008 the matter was reserved for judgment. On the said date, appellants were directed to file written submissions within a week. Respondent was granted a weeks time to respond. I waited till 31.03.2008 for the written submissions to be filed by the appellant. Unfortunately, appellant has chosen not to file the written submissions thereforee I have no option but to decide the present appeal with reference to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal which alone were projected at the hearing.

.2. The question involved in the appeal is whether the finding returned by the learned trial court that the will dated 17.04.1973 Ex.PW 1/1 is the last legal and valid testament executed by the Late Smt Mela Devi @ Iqbal Devi is correct.

.Backdrop Facts

3. Smt. Mela Devi @ Iqbal Devi (hereinafter referred to as the testatrix) died on 10.02.1987 leaving behind her two married daughters namely Smt. Sudershan Kumari Handa and Smt. Pushpa as her heirs.

4. Smt. Sudershan Kumari was the natural daughter of the testatrix and Smt Pushpa was the adopted daughter of the testatrix.

5. Testatrix was the owner of the property bearing Municipal No.K-16, East of Kailash, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property).

6. Smt. Sudershan Kumari Handa always lived in Delhi after her marriage whereas Smt. Pushpa never stayed in Delhi after her marriage.

7. On 04.05.1987 Smt. Sudershan Kumari Handa (hereinafter referred to as the propounder) filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking probate of a will purported to have been executed by the testatrix on 17.04.1973.

.8. Along with the probate petition, two identically worded affidavits dated 21.04.1987 executed by Mr. Jagdish Pershad Jain and Mr. Joginder Pal Mathur respectively were also filed. During evidence affidavit executed by Mr. Joginder Pal Mathur was exhibited as Ex.PW 1/2 while the one executed by Mr. Jagdish Pershad Jain was marked as Mark Z. In said affidavits, it was deposed that on 17.04.1973 the testatrix who was in a state of sound disposing mind executed the will in their presence. That the contents of the will were explained to the testatrix by her husband Mr. Basheshar Nath Puri in Punjabi language and that the testatrix appended her signatures on the will after understanding its contents.

.Will

9. The will dated 17.04.1973 Ex.PW 1/1 is a computer typed document and consists of 4 sheets. It has been typed in English language.

10. The will bears the purported signatures of the testatrix at 3 points A-1, A-2 and A. Point A-1 appears in the first line on the first sheet where the date 17th April, 1973 has been filled in hand in a blank space. Point A-2 appears towards the end of the third sheet where a correction has been made. Point A appears at the end of the will at the place where the word Executant is typed. The purported signatures of the testatrix have been appended in devnagri script.

11. The will is an unregistered document.

12. The will has been witnessed by Mr. Jagdish Pershad Jain and Mr.Joginder Pal Mathur.

13. Under the will, the testatrix has bequeathed the property in favor of the propounder. However, a life interest in respect of the first floor of the property has been vested in the favor of the other daughter Smt. Pushpa and her husband Mr. Khairati Lal Malhotra.

14. The will contains a reference to an earlier will executed by the testatrix on

26th April 1967 and revokes the same.

Objections To The Will

15. Smt. Pushpa and Mr.Khairati Lal Malhotra filed objections to the will. Relevant portion of the objections reads as under:

Preliminary Objections:

2. ...The will in question was never validly executed by late Smt. Mela Devi alias Iqbal Devi. The petitioners and her husband got the alleged will typed out without any instructions of the alleged testator and obtained her signatures fraudulently. As such the alleged will does not show the free will and intention of the alleged testator.

3. …I