1. These Appeals assail the composite Judgment dated 6.8.1996 of the learned Single Judge deciding Probate Case Nos.24/1973 and 32/1978 refusing the prayer of the Petitioners to grant probate of the propounded Wills of Late Kundan Singh and Late Polo Singh respectively.

2. Probate Case No.24/1973 was filed for grant of probate of Will of Late Kundan Singh and Probate Case No.32/1978 was filed seeking probate of the Will of Late Polo Singh, who was the brother of Late Kundan Singh. The Petitioners in both the cases are common namely – S/Shri Hari Singh, Pritam Singh and Amar Singh, however, in Appeal only S/Shri Hari Singh and Pritam Singh are before us as Shri Amar Singh had died on 4.7.1995. An application under Order XXII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short) was moved by the surviving Petitioners which was allowed without any opposition from the other side.

3. Objections were filed in Probate Case No.24/1973 by the daughter of Late Kundan Singh, namely, Smt. Gurbax Kaur and in Probate Case No.32/1978 by widow of Late Polo Singh and their daughter Smt. Gurinder Kaur.

4. We shall deal with both the Appeals separately to avoid overlapping and confusion.

5. This Appeal impugns the refusal of grant of probate in Probate Case No.24/1973. The said Probate case was filed for the probation of the Will of Late Kundan Singh dated 2.12.1963. The Testator had died on 17.8.1971. The said Will is said to have been witnessed by Shri Mustaq Rai Khanna and Dr. Sohan Singh. The Probate Petition was accompanied by affidavits of these two attesting witnesses. By this Will, Late Kundan Singh had bequeathed his entire property and interest in the partnership business to his three nephews, S/Shri Hari Singh and Pritam Singh, who are the sons of his deceased brother Shri Ralia Ram, and Amar Singh who is the son of his other deceased brother Shri Paras Ram. The case of the Petitioners is that Late Kundan Singh and Late Polo Singh were jointly doing some business and the Petitioners who were their nephews were looked after by them as their own sons; and the petitioners respected their uncles just as their own fathers. It was because of the mutual affection between them that the Uncles executed the Wills in the favour of their nephews. The Will is in English and bequeaths the entire property of Late Kundan Singh to his nephews. The wife of the Testator had been appointed as the Executrix and nothing was given to her or her daughters. The Widow of Late Kundan Singh died in 1966. On 15.3.1976, their daughter, Smt.Gurbaksh Kaur filed Objections against the grant of Probate sought by the Petitioners on the basis of the propounded Will.

6. In the Reply filed to the said Objections, the Petitioners have taken a plea that the deceased did not bequeath any property to his daughter because of the strained relations between the father and the daughter during the lifetime of the deceased. The same Reply also seeks to explain that the correct date of the Will is dated 18.11.1963 and the date mentioned as 8.1.1963 in the Petition was a mere typographical error.

7. The learned Single Judge, however, did not agree with the case of the Petitioners. After considering the evidence and statements of witnesses on record, he held that “the petitioners have not proved the due execution of the will and attestation of two attesting witnesses as required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and they have not proved the same under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872” and that he was “not able to accept the evidence of Mustaq Rai Khanna and Amar Singh on the aspect of due execution of the will having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case”. Shri Mushtaq Rai Khanna, the attesting witness to the propounded Will, was examined on commission. Shri Amar Singh was the only Petitioner who appeared in the Witness Box. The learned Single Judge held that there were various suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and