Harun-Ul-Rashid, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.6.2003 in O.S.No.8/2002 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The said case was originally filed as L.A(OP).No.12/1999 and converted as a suit and re-numbered as O.S.No.8/2002. The suit was filed praying to grant letters of administration of the Will. The court below by the impugned judgment held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the Will was a genuine Will executed by Eliswa fully knowing the contents of the document and knowing the impact of her act of executing such a document over her interest on her properties. The court below dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.

2. The 2nd plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the two sons of the deceased Eliswa. Defendants 2 and 3 are her daughters. The 1st plaintiff at the time institution of the O.P was a minor. He is the son of the 2nd plaintiff. Eliswa died on 20.7.1998. The plaint schedule property belonged to deceased Eliswa. Eliswa executed the Will on 18.12.1995 as her last Will. As per the said Will, plaint schedule property was bequeathed in favour of her grandson, who is the 1st plaintiff and son of the 2nd plaintiff. The 1st defendant contested the suit. He contended that the alleged Will is not a genuine Will, that late Eliswa had earlier executed her last Will in the year 1988, that Eliswa was laid up from the year 1994 up to her death and that she was not in a position to execute the Will or to do her day-to-day affairs. It is also contended that the Will was executed by exercising coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence. It is further contended that the Will was executed without knowing the contents of the document and is a forged one.

3. Plaintiffs examined PWs 1 to 4. PW1 is the 2nd plaintiff, PW2 is the advocate who drafted the Will, PW3 is the attesting witness. Exts.A1 to A3 are the documents produced by the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B6 were marked on his side. The court below examined the question as to whether the Will dated 18.12.1995 marked as Ext.A3 is genuine or not. The court after appreciating the evidence stated the reasons in paragraph 13 to 18 to find that the plaintiffs failed to remove the suspicious circumstance seen in execution and registration of the Will.

4. Deceased Eliswa has four children at the time of her death. She was the owner in possession of 11.25 cents of land. Out of the said extent, earlier she gave 3.833 cents of land to the 2nd plaintiff. The balance land is the subject matter of the suit.

5. The plaintiffs' case is that deceased Eliswa had executed Ext.A3 Will dated 18.12.1995 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of her grandson. It is alleged that deceased Eliswa was in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will and that she had executed the Will knowing the consequences of executing the Will and the impact of her acts in the property. Contesting defendant contended that deceased Eliswa was laid up from 1994 up to her death in 1998, that she was not physically and mentally capable to execute the Will and had executed the Will without knowing the contents of the documents. The main contention raised by the defendant is that the Will was happened to be executed under coercion, misrepresentation and undue influence. Ext.A3 is the Will. Admittedly, deceased Eliswa had earlier executed a registered Will in the year 1988. She was aged 69 as on the date of execution of Ext.A3 Will. In the first page of Ext.A3 itself the Will referred the execution of the registered Will in the year 1988. Deceased Eliswa cancelled the said Will and alleged to have executed Ext.A3 Will. In page 2 of Ext.A3 it is stated that her two daughters, who are defendants 3 & 4, were given in marriage and that a