The validity of a Will is confirmed when the proponent meets the burden of proof, and the objector fails to provide substantial evidence of suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant impugns Judgment dated 23.11.2019 whereby the Trial Court has granted probate to the Executor of the Will dated 22.11.1997 of Late Smt. Sushila Khanna.

2. Both Appellant (Smt. Usha Vijay) and Respondent No. 2 (Smt. Uma Varma) are real sisters and daughters of Late Smt. Sushila Khanna.

3. Respondent No. 2 applied for grant of Probate contending that she was appointed as the executor of the Will by her late mother. The Will is stated to have been attested by the respective husband's of the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2. Appellant filed objections to the said Will.

4. The Trial Court has dismissed the objections and held that the Will has been duly signed by the Testatrix and has been duly attested and that she was having a sound disposing and consequently the Will has been duly proved and as such granted the Probate of the Will. Trial Court has also noticed that no evidence has been led by the Objector in support of her objections.

5. Appellant has impugned the order primarily on the ground that the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In addition it is contended that the Appellant could not lead any evidence as she was unwell.

6. Trial Court in the impugned Judgment has noticed, that despite publication of citation in the newspaper, no objections were received from the public or state except the ones filed by the Appellant.

7. With regard to the execution of the Will, the Trial Court after noticing the law as laid down by the Supreme Court, has held as under:

"39. The petitioner side has contended that the examination of one of the attesting witness - PW-2 Sohan Lal Verma had already discharged their initial onus and the witness has categorically proved the valid execution of the Will by Smt. Sushila Khanna. It has also been contended that the other witness, who had been the witness No.1 to the will is the husband of the objector and the objector had denied the signatures of Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay on the Will, which clearly implies that the said witness has been won over by the respondent and as such his examination was neither necessary, nor is his non-examination, available as a ground or an argument by the respondent side. The petitioner has further contended that though the witness-PW2 has been cross examined at length on' different occasions but nothing has come on record which could be claimed as suspicious, by the objector side.

40. Having regard to the objections raised by respondent No.2, wherein respondent No.2 has claimed that the signatures of the testator as well as the witness No.1 are forged and fabricated, the Will needs to be examined from this perspective before proceeding to the other aspects. While the narrative of the petitioner side is that the Will was signed by the testator in the presence of respondent No.2 herself, her husband Hari Kishan Vijay, who is attesting witness No.1 to the Will and Sh Sohan Lal Verma, the husband of the petitioner, the counter narrative is that the Will is a forged and fabricated document as neither the testator had signed the document, nor the document signed by Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay as an attesting witness No. 1.

41. Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay has neither been called upon by the petitioner nor by respondent side and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case where the Will is shown to have been executed at the residence of the objector/respondent No.2 as well as her husband Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay and further considering the nature of the objection as to the signatures of Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay being forged and fabricated, the examination of Sh. Hari Kishan Vijay would have cl