The burden of proof lies with the propounder of the Will, and the decision under Part 10 of the Indian Succession Act does not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil litigations.

Revision petitioner is the petitioner in O.P. No. 64 of 1977 of the Sub-Court, Palghat. She filed the petition under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of a Succession Certificate enabling her to collect the family pension, death cum-retirement gratuity, balance of provident fund and the amount in the S.B. account due to the estate of deceased V.K. Raman Nair. The Sub-Judge dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing the genuineness of Ext. A37 Will. Petitioner filed C.M.A. 57 of 1981 before the District Court, Palghat, The District Judge confirmed the order of the Sub-Judge and dismissed the appeal.

2. Petitioner is the niece of deceased V.K. Raman Nair. Respondents 1 to 3 are the sisters of the deceased. Second respondent is the mother of the petitioner. Of the respondents the 4th respondent alone contested the proceedings. Claiming herself to be the wife of Raman Nair disputed the genuineness of the Will.

3. As the genuineness of the Will is disputed the burden is squarely upon the propounder of the Will to prove it. Petitioner's contention is that Ext. A-37 Will is the last testament of Raman Nair and in view of the recitals in it she alone is entitled to the grant of succession certificate. P.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined to prove the Will. They claimed to be the attestors. Though Ext. A-37 contained the address of P. Ws. 2 and 3 their signatures are singularly absent in it. Their evidence that they signed Ext. A-37 as attestors stands self condemned.

4. Suspicious circumstances exist regarding the execution of the Will. It is in evidence that Raman Nair was admitted in the Seventh Day Adventist Hospital, Ottappalam on 4-6-1976 and he expired on 8-6-1976. Ext. A-34 telegram dated 22-5-1976 received by the petitioner would show that Raman Nair was seriously ill. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband went to Andhra Pradesh and brought Raman Nair to his native place. The doctor who treated Raman Nair was not examined before the Court. There is no acceptable evidence to hold that Raman Nair was in a sound disposing state of mind on the day on which Ext. A-37 was alleged to have been executed, viz. 29-5-1976.

5. It is in evidence that the petitioner opposed the application for heirship certificate filed by the 4th respondent before the Tahsildar, Palghat and she in turn applied for a certificate. The file kept with the Taluk Office was produced before the Sub-Court and the relevant documents were marked. Before the Tahsildar the petitioner failed to mention about the existence of Ext. A-37 Will. Failure on the part of the petitioner to make any reference to Ext. A-37 Will before the Tahsildar is sufficient to discredit her case. Sub-Judge as well as the District Judge have analysed the evidence correctly and held against the petitioner.

6. Counsel for the petitioner next contended that there was no necessity, at all for the Courts below to consider the status of the 4th respondent as the wife of the testator and therefore that finding should be set aside. Counsel relied on Ammini Ammal v. Lakshmi, AIR 1957 Ker 90 and submitted that where the Courts were concerned with the grant of succession certificate on the basis of the evidence produced before it there was no necessity at all for the Courts to decide whether the 4th respondent is the wife of the testator or not. Counsel urged that the finding regarding the status of the 4th respondent as the wife of the testator has to be set aside on the ground that it was not a germane issue in the proceedings for the grant of Succession Certificate.

7. There is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner that merely because the Court held that the 4th respondent is the wife of the testator it would operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings. In an application filed u/s. 372 of the Indian Succession Act the contesting parties are not entitled to raise contentions regarding title to the property or such ot