Abdul Gafoor, J.

Appellant-plaintiff in O.S.No.4 of 1994 did not succeed in obtaining letters of administration in respect of Ext.A1 will dated 17-12-1981 executed by his father Chacko. Therefore, this appeal.

2. The said Chacko died on 3-1-1985. Later, in the year 1994, the appellant applied for letters of administration invoking Section 312 of the Indian Succession Act. His three brothers and two sisters were arrayed as respondents in the said petitions. In the mean time, another sister Brijitha expired on 4-12-1988. There were no other legal representatives to the testator than the plaintiff and the respondents.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 contested the will contending that their father had not executed Ext.A1 will. Thereupon, O.P.No.12 of 1994 was converted as a suit. Evidence was let in by either side. Execution of the will was attempted to be proved through PW2 the attester to the will satisfying the requirement under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The testamentary capacity was sought to be proved by he evidence of plaintiff himself as PW1 who was residing with the testator and PW2, the attester to the will. Ext.A2 is the death certificate of the testator.

4. One among the contesting defendants, who gave evidence as DW1, disputed the will. According to him, his father never executed Ext.A1 will. Signature in Ext.A1 will was not of his father.

5. Appreciating the evidence on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the disproportionality in the bequeath made in Ext.A1 will in the name of the plaintiff as compared to that in favour of the defendants and the delay in approaching the court for letters of administration were sufficient to cast doubt on the execution of the will. Apart from that, the court below also found from the evidence of PW2 that he had not properly proved execution of the will. The court below was also of the view that considering the age and health of the testator at the relevant point of time, he did not have the necessary testamentary capacity to execute Ext.A1 will. Accordingly, letters of administration was declined. This is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Any court considering the admissibility of a will has to first examine whether the plaintiff who seeks letters of administration has prima facie proved its execution and the testamentary capacity of the testator.

7. PW1 has spoken to before the court below that the testator, his father, had been living with him since long and even at the time of execution of the will and until his death. Other sons including defendant No.2 had been living separately from the father. Defendant No.2 was living separately. He is a bachelor. The testator had been hospitalized in his life only once. That too due to ailments of piles. At the time of his death, he had not been in hospital though he had undertaken treatment by a doctor. He did have full physical capacity as well as mental capacity to execute the will. He had been the President of a Co-operative Society and he himself had gone to the Registrar’s Office for execution of the will without the assistance of any one else.

8. According to PW2, he was a scribe attached to the office of his brother, who was a document writer. He and his colleague Salim were the attesters to Ext.A1. According to PW2, the testator Chacko used to come to the office of his brother for execution of documents on behalf of the Co-operative Society of which he was the President, releasing mortgage in favour of the members of the Society after due discharge of the debts incurred by them. Therefore, he knew the testator since long as a usual visitor to the office where he was working. According to him, on the date of execution of Ext.A1, Chacko had been to his office in the morning and preparation of the will has been completed by noon. Chacko had subscribed his signature to Ext.A1 will in his presence and in the presence of his colleague Salim. According to him, he had also