The execution of a will must be proved, and the mere dispute of the will by a party does not provide sufficient grounds to question its execution.

1. Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal are daughters of one Indira Bai. Appellants are her three sons. Indira Bai died on 13th November, 1981.

2. In April, 1983, respondent No.1 instituted a suit against the appellants, respondent No. 2 and her father claiming that Indira Bai died intestate on 13th November, 1981 and she is entitled to 1/6th share in the properties left behind by her. She also pleaded that if there is any will that is forged. All the defendants, namely, father, three brothers and one sister of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 took the stand that Indira Bai had left behind a will dated 26th August, 1981 and her properties are to be dealt with as per the will. The father of respondent No.1 who was defendant No.1 in the suit died during the pendency of the suit.

3. On appreciation of evidence the trial court held that the will had been duly proved and the suit was dismissed. In the first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed by the High Court. The findings of the trial court upholding the will dated 26th August, 1981 were reversed by the impugned judgment Editor's Note : See 1991 (1) KLT 246 - Sumangala T. Pai v. Sundaresa Pai. It was held that the will had not been proved and the plaintiff was entitled to 1/6th share in the assets of Indira Bai. Since the husband of Indira Bai died during the pendency of the suit and respondent No.1 disputed the execution of will by her father and proceeding on the basis that her father died intestate, the plaintiff by amending the plaint claimed 1/5th share instead of 1/6th in the estate of Indira Bai. The High Court directed remand of the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal in the light of the findings in respect of the will dated 26th August, 1981. The trial court was directed to decide whether respondent No.1 inherited 1/6th or 1/5th share in the estate of Indira Bai. The judgment of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal by sons of Indira Bai. The other sister supporting the appellants is respondent No. 2 in the appeal.

4. The two attesting witnesses to the will of Indira Bai are her husband and an advocate. The advocate appeared in the suit as a witness (DW2). Admittedly he was the family lawyer of the defendants. The High Court has recorded a finding that "undoubtedly there is a formal evidence of execution of the will, that is, Indira Bai signing the will in the presence of attestators and the attestators signing the will in the presence of Indira Bai." After this finding, the High Court examines the circumstances and comes to the conclusion that the will was unnatural and in this view the finding of the trial court upholding the will was reversed.

5. The main reason which weighed with the High Court for its conclusion that the will was unnatural was uneven distribution of the assets by Indira Bai and also that the will did not give anything to the widowed daughter. According to the High Court this daughter was'perhaps more deserving'. It also noticed that the will gave bulk of immovable properties to only one son. Another son was not given any immovable property. The third son was given one half share in only one immovable property and the other half of it was given to respondent No. 1. Indira Bai in the will also did not give anything to her husband. All movables as per the will were given to the three sons equally.

6. It is significant to note that only the plaintiff has questioned the will. All the defendants were supporting the will. The High Court also found that in view of the testimony of the attesting witness, the will had been formally proved. Under these circumstances, we fail to understand how the conclusion about the will being unnatural on the basis of uneven distribution of the assets by Indira Bai could be reached. The widowed daughter had not questioned the will. She rather supported it. Therefore, it could not be taken as a circumstance to show that the will was unnatural by observing that she was more deserving. It i