The propounder of a will has the burden of proving its due execution and removing any doubts from the Court's mind regarding suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

BAHARUL ISLAM, J.:- This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court and arises out of a probate case.

2. Lakheswar Nath, respondent No. 1 herein, filed an application under Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called the Act), before the District Judge, Dhubri, for the probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Purnima Bala Devi, who died on 21-7-69. In the application he mentioned the names of appellants 1, 2 and 3 and respondents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and one Jikafuli Devi as the relatives left by the deceased Purnima Bala Devi. In the application he mentioned that he had been appointed by the testarix the executor of the will.

3. The appellants filed objections. Their material objections were to the effect that at the relevant time the executrix "had no testamentary and mental capacity, she had no disposing mind, she had no mental power requisite for a valid disposition of property, she was in extreme suffering due to serious illness and extreme old age". It was averred that the will was the result of collusion and fraud perpetrated by the applicant and the legatee, Haranath. It was also stated in the objection that before the alleged will was executed, another will had been executed by Purnima Bala Devi on 21-10-1959 in favour of the appellants and Jikafuli, aforesaid. It was further avered that Jikafuli had died before the death of Purnima. She had left behind heirs who were not made parties to the application, and, as such, the application was bad in law.

4. Respondent No. 7, Golok Chandra Nath, and one Lalit Chandra Nath also filed an objection, but ultimately they did not contest the application for probate.

5. The learned District Judge framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the alleged Will has been executed by Purnima Bala?

(2) Whether said Will is genuine?

(3) Whether Purnima Bala had testamentary and mental capacity to execute the Will?

(4) Whether the will had been brought into existence by legatee and the applicant?

(5) Whether applicant is entitled to get probate?

6. The applicant examined 4 witnesses and the appellant 4. The learned District Judge first took up for decision issue No. 5 and he, before considering the evidence of the witnesses examined by the applicant (respondent No. 1), considered certain circumstances, to which we shall refer a little later, and came to the finding that the execution of the will was suspicious, and in that view he rejected the application for probate. On appeal the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment of the learned District Judge and ordered grant of probate as prayed for. Thereafter the contesting objectors have filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Letters Patent as stated above.

7. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that as the Jikafulis heirs, who had interest in the property involved in the will have not been made parties to the probate proceedings and no notices were issued to them, the proceedings have been vitiated. In support of his contention learned counsel relies on S.283 (1) (c) of the Act, which is in the following terms:

"283. (1) In all cases the District Judge or District Delegate may, if he thinks proper,-

..... ...... ....... ......

(c) issue citations calling upon all persons claiming to have any interest in the estate of the deceased to come and see the proceedings before the grant of probate or letters of administration."

Sub-section (2) of Section 283 of the Act may also be read :

"(2) The citation shall be fixed up in some conspicuous part of the Court-house, and also in the office of the Collector of the district and otherwise published or made known in such manner as the Judge or District Delegate issuing the same may direct".

It is apposite in this connection to refer to Section 373 (1) of the Act, which reads as under:

"373 (1). If the District Judge is satisfied that there is ground for entertaining the applica