K. Abraham Mathew, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, whose prayer to grant probate for the Will allegedly executed by her husband's brother was rejected by the District Court.

2. One Thomman had in his ownership certain properties. He died intestate. Xavier and Antony were his sons and Mary, the 1st defendant, his only daughter. In O.P. 1 of 1962 Xavier obtained a declaration that his brother Antony was of unsound mind and he got himself appointed Antony's guardian. Xavier died on 12.1.1979. Thereafter, by the order in O.P. 403 of 1980 filed by his wife, Tresa (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) the District Court appointed her guardian of Antony. The Court did not accept the contention of the 1st defendant Mary's nephew, Peter Thompson (Addl 8th defendant in this case) that his uncle Antony had no mental illness. In M.F.A.32 of 1982 filed by him the High Court set aside the order of the District Court and remanded the O.P. for fresh consideration. When the matter was under consideration of the District Court, the plaintiff in this case abandoned it by filing a statement that the O.P. was not pressed. She filed O.S.112 of 1984 for partition of the properties which belonged to her father in-law claiming allotment of / share to herself as the legal heir of her husband, Xavier, and 1/2 share to his brother, Antony. The court found that each of the 3 children of Thomman was equally entitled to the property and they were allotted 1/3 share each by the preliminary decree. Before the preliminary decree was passed Antony executed Ext A10 Will on 3.4.1986. On 16.8.1994 he died. Two years later in 1996 the plaintiff filed O.P. 482 of 1996 for granting probate for the Will of Antony. Antony's sister, Mary, was the 1st defendant. She raised a contention that in view of her pleadings in O.P. 403 of 1980 that Antony was of unsound mind the plaintiff is estopped from contending that he had a disposing state of mind. She also raised a contention that the Will is not genuine and it is vitiated by undue influence, coercion and fraud. The O.P. was renumbered as O.S.23 of 2001. Pending the suit the 1st defendant died and her children were impleaded as additional defendants 7 to 9. Defendants 2 and 6 are the adopted daughter and her husband respectively of the plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 5 are their children. The plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are legatees under the Will. After the trial the learned Sub Judge held that the Will is not genuine and accordingly, he dismissed the suit. The judgment is challenged in this appeal by the plaintiff. She died and her children have been impleaded as additional appellants.

3. The learned Sub Judge has made the following observations about the mental condition of Antony. "So it means that the petitioner wanted to create document to the effect that Antony was a lunatic…………. The petitioner's husband has also created all necessary document to establish that Antony was a lunatic". (paragraph 11). But the last sentence in the very same paragraph is this: "It is also seen from Ext B18 and deposition of DW2 that Antony was a lunatic in the year 1980, i.e, on the date of notice". Again in paragraph 17 he has said: "So the deposition of Manuel Sequeira and Ext B19 show that Antony was suffering from mental disease". But we also see the following sentence in paragraph 19: "Suppressing the entire facts Tresa and Xavier tried to describe Antony as an insane person with certain ulterior motive". Thus there is not only no definite finding, but there are conflicting observations also in the judgment of the lower court about the soundness of mind of Antony, which is the pivotal question in the case.

4. Though the learned Sub Judge has discussed the evidence, he has not analysed it. The reasons for acting upon the evidence on various points are lacking in his judgment.

5. A judgment devoid of reasons betrays non application of mind by the judge. The litigant and the legal professi