Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad in O.S. No.283/1999 followed by those of the I Additional District Court, Thrissur in A.S. No.126/2005, the plaintiff in O.S.No.283/1999 has come up in this Regular Second Appeal.

2. The suit was originally one for declaration that Ext.B3 Will dated 06.04.1984 registered as deed No.4/1984 of the Andathodu Sub Registry Office was illegal and void and that the defendants or any person other than the plaintiff have no manner of right over the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is 22 ¾ cents and a house building thereon.

3. The plaintiff is admittedly the only daughter and sole legal heir of deceased Madhavan Nair. The mother of the plaintiff died in her childhood, when she was only 4 years old. Thereafter, the plaintiff was being looked after and maintained by her maternal uncle and others. Madhavan Nair died on 25.06.1995. It has come out that on 06.04.1984, Madhavan Nair had executed Ext.B3 Will, thereby bequeathing all his properties in equal shares to his sister Parukkutti Amma and defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters of Parukkutti Amma, and defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the 1st defendant. Admittedly, Parukkutti Amma predeceased Madhavan Nair. After the death of Madhavan Nair, the legatees of Ext.B3 Will, except Parukkutti Amma, propounded the Will and claimed that the plaint schedule properties have devolved on them through Ext.B3. Plaintiff challenges the validity of Ext.B3 Will on the ground that there are several suspicious circumstances in the execution of Ext.B3 and the defendants, who are four among the legatees in the Will, are duty bound to dispel all the suspicious circumstances.

4. The Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad dismissed the suit, after trial. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No.126/2005 before the District Court, Thrissur. The learned I Additional District Judge, Thrissur dismissed A.S. No.126/2005.

5. The Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether courts below were justified in holding that it is for the plaintiff to prove that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding Ext.B3 Will, when it is for the propounder to remove all the suspicion surrounding the execution of the Will?

(ii) When the plaintiff is the only daughter who would have inherited the properties, and she was disinherited by providing a payment of Rs.10,000/- and on the evidence and attending circumstances, whether the courts below were justified in upholding Ext.B3 Will?

6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. K. Ramachandran and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Sri. G. Sreekumar, Chelur.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the decision in Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma and others [1959 SC 443], has argued that it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to dispel all the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will. It has been pointed out that both the courts below have forgotten the principles enunciated in Venkatachala Iyengar (Supra) and quite unfortunately, have taken the view that the plaintiff, who has challenged the execution of the Will, has to prove the suspicious circumstances in the execution of Ext.B3.

8. This Court had occasion to consider the said question in Vadakkayil Gopalan and others v. Vadakkayil Paru and others [2013 (3) KLT 69]. It is apparent that both the courts below have gone wrong and made an erroneous approach in dealing with the matter. It is true that one of the attestors of Ext.B3 was examined before the court below as DW2. At the same time, several vital aspects had escaped the notice of both the courts below. When the plaintiff has pointed out some suspicious circumstances, and when the defendants have propounded the Will, it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to dispel all these suspicious circumstances. In Venka