Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Is it the duty of the propounder of a Will to prove its genuineness and to dispel suspicious circumstances, if any, surrounding its execution, even when the adverse party does not specifically deny the existence of the Will, and even when admits its existence? Can the doctrine of dependent relative revocation absolve the burden of the propounder of the earlier Will from proving its genuineness or its due execution, or to dispel the suspicious circumstance, surrounding its execution?

2. By propounding Ext.A1 Will dated 24.1.1989 allegedly executed by two sisters, namely, deceased Mathu and Paru, the plaintiff has forwarded a claim for partition of the property covered by Ext.A1, after the death of Mathu and during the life time of Paru, who is the first defendant. Mathu died on 2.9.1991, thereby the plaintiff, based on Ext.A1 Will claims half share over the property on the averment that the bequest through Ext.A1 joint Will to the extent it relates to the disposition by Mathu has taken effect on her death.

3. The first defendant Paru has contended that Ext.A1 Will has not come into operation as it stood revoked through the execution of Ext.B1 joint and mutual Will dated 15.5.1991 by Mathu and herself. It was also contended that a portion of the scheduled property having an extent of 10 cents was gifted by Mathu and herself to the 2nd defendant through Ext.B2 settlement deed dated 30.4.1991. Inter alia, it was also contended that Ext.A1 Will was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff averred that Mathu died after prolonged illness, on 2.9.1991 and she had a flaccid mental faculty for about six months before her death. Even though the plaintiff has not revealed anything regarding the execution of Ext.B1 Will dated 15.5.1991, it seems that the aforesaid averment was deliberately made by eying on the execution of Ext.B1 by the testatrices, in order to bring out a suspicious circumstance in the execution of Ext.B1. Even when the written statement was filed by the first defendant on 25.11.1991, the plaint was belatedly amended through order dated 5.9.1992 in I.A.No.1142 of 1992 by incorporating paragraph No.6A in the plaint and impleading the 2nd defendant who is the donee in Ext.B2. Paragraph No.6A of the plaint reads as follows:

"2nd defendant is said to be a done of a section of the property by gift dated 30.4.1991. The plaintiff denies the right of the 2nd defendant over any section of the plaint property and will deliver additional pleadings after seeing D2's pleadings."

5. It seems that the 2nd defendant has filed his written statement on 16.10.1992. However, the plaintiff has not cared to deliver any additional pleadings as averred in paragraph No.6A of the plaint. It seems that there is no challenge with regard to the execution of Ext.B2, or its genuineness.

6. After a full fledged trial, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court, by upholding the findings entered by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the execution of Ext.B1 is shrouded in suspicious circumstances, and deceased Mathu who was the co-testatrix of the first defendant had no mental ability to exercise any free will at the time of the execution of Ext.B1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first defendant has failed to dispel the suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of Ext.B1, thereby the bequest through Ext.B1 fails, and on such failure, Ext.A1 revives through the doctrine of dependent relative revocation.

7. It remains a mystery as to how Ext.A1 was marked by the trial court. The records do not reveal the examination of any of the attesting witnesses to prove Ext.A1. As pointed out by the learned single Judge, any of the attesting witnesses to Ext.A1 was not examined to prove the execution of Ext.A1. Even the plaintiff has not cared to mount the box