M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This application is filed by Ms. Benu Puri seeking her substitution in place of the deceased plaintiff No. 1 Sita Kashyap by virtue of registered will dated 14.06.2004 in her favour. On 29.01.2010, the following issues were framed:

“(i) Whether Benu Puri is the LR of deceased Sita Kashyap in terms of the registered Will dated 14.06.2004, registered on 15.06.2004 and if so, its effect?”

(ii) “Relief”.

2. Subsequently, vide order dated 02.06.2012, the issues were recast as under:

(i) Whether the Will dated 14th June, 2004 was validy executed by Late Smt. Sita Kashyap? OPP.”

(ii) “Relief”.

3. The suit was initially filed by the two sisters namely Sita Kashyap and Leela Puri against their brother Harbans Kashyap and the LRs of their deceased brother Jagdish Chander Kashyap. The preliminary decree of partition of property No. 5A, Guru Gobind Singh Marg, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was passed by this court on 10.05.2007, holding each party having one-fourth undivided share in this property. Subsequently, a final decree of partition was passed on 19.11.2007, whereby the said property was directed to be sold by public auction, and the parties entitled to bid therein to the exclusion of their shares. After the final decree, Sita Kashyap died and the applicant Benu Puri, who is the daughter of Leela Kashyap has sought substitution in her place on the basis of a Will dated 14.06.2004. The said Will is disputed by the defendants. The applicant Benu Puri has examined herself as PW1 and witness Vaneeta Kapoor as PW2. Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaggi, who allegedly drafted the said Will is also examined as PW3. The defendant No. 1 Harbans Kashyap has examined himself as D1W1. No evidence has been led by the defendants No. 2 and 3 (LRs of deceased brother Jagdish Chander Kashyap).

4. I have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the defendants.

5. Since by execution of Will, a person intends to alter the rule of succession or desires a particular form of inheritance, it is upon the propounder of a Will to prove the execution and validity thereof to the satisfaction of the judicial conscience. Thereafter, the onus would shift to the defendant, who intends to assail the execution or the validity of the Will. Creation of suspicious circumstances by the defendant assailing the Will would cast further onus upon the propounder to remove those suspicious circumstances. There cannot be any dispute that registration of the Will itself is no assurance that the same is genuine and validly executed. It is also settled proposition that each and every circumstance would not be a suspicious circumstance. What is alleged by the defendant, would have to be judged in facts and circumstances of each case.

6. This court in the case of Pratap Singh & Another Vs. State & Anr., 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 490analyzed the law as regard to the proving of a Will and observed thus:

“6. The principles to be applied by a Court for grant of probate have been succinctly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 wherein their Lordships held:-“

“4. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 and Rani Purnima Devi v. Khagendra Narayan Dev, : (1962) 3 SCR 195 : (AIR 1962 SC 567). The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfac