In cases of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last Will of the testator, and the propounder bears a heavy initial onus to prove the due and valid execution of the Will.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

1. Challenging the concurrent findings entered by the Munsiff's Court, Thalassery in O.S. No. 301 of 2000, followed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thalassery in A.S. No. 61 of 2006, the plaintiffs in the suit have come up with this second appeal.

2. The suit is one for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- allegedly collected by the defendant, from the District Court, Thalassery, from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme, on the death of one Radhakrishnan, who was the husband of the defendant. Radhakrishnan died on 19.11.1995. According to the plaintiffs, Radhakrishnan had executed Exhibit-A1 unregistered Will on 31.10.1995 and as per Exhibit-A1 Will, Radhakrishnan had bequeathed his entire assets, both movables and immovables, including the amount to be disbursed from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme also, to the plaintiffs. It is their case that the defendant had unauthorisedly and illegally collected the amount of Rs. 10,000/- disbursed on account of the death of Radhakrishnan from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme.

3. The defendant strongly denied the execution of the Will. She contended that the Will is an out come of forgery and that deceased Radhakrishnan had never executed such a Will. She had disputed the handwriting in the Will as well as the signature in the Will. According to her, Radhakrishnan had no occasion to execute such a Will and the signatures and the handwriting in the Will are not that of Radhakrishnan. According to her, Radhakrishnan was suffering from AIDS and finally, he succumbed to the said disease. When the plaintiffs were claiming that Exhibit-A1 Will was executed in their favour by Radhakrishnan in the year 1995 itself, they could have claimed the amount from the said Scheme in the year 1995 itself. The defendant was not, in fact, made known about the actual disease of Radhakrishnan for long. The plaintiffs had prevented the attempt of the defendant to live along with the deceased Radhakrishnan. According to the defendant, when she had forwarded a demand for partition and separate possession of the property jointly owned by the plaintiffs and Radhakrishnan, Exhibit-A1 forged Will was created by the plaintiffs for forwarding unnecessary claims in respect of the properties of the deceased.

4. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court had disbelieved Exhibit-A1. It is trite law that it is the propounder of the Will to dispel all the suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will. It has been pointed out that just as a test dose, the present suit was filed by seeking the recovery of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- disbursed to the defendant from the District Court, Thalassery from the Advocate Clerks' Welfare Fund Scheme, on account of the death of Radhakrishnan, who was an Advocate Clerk. Even when the Will has been strongly challenged, no further reliefs have been incorporated in the suit.

5. This court has perused the contents of Exhibit-A1 as well as Exhibit-A4(a). Exhibit-A4(a) was a complaint allegedly preferred by deceased Radhakrishnan against his father-in-law, his wife and her other relatives. According to the plaintiffs, Exhibit-A4 was in the handwriting of the deceased. At the same time, PW3, who was cited and examined to prove the handwriting and the signature of the deceased, has deposed that the last paragraph and also the writings at the side of the paper in Exhibit- A4(a) are not in the handwriting of the deceased. According to him, the other portions of Exhibit-A4(a) are in the handwriting of the deceased. On a comparison of the handwriting in Exhibit-A1 with Exhibit-A4(a), it is evident that there is an ocean of difference between the handwriting in Exhibit-A4(a) and the handwriting in Exhibit-A1.

6. At the same time, it is evident that the handwriting in Exhibit-A1 and the handwriting in the last paragraph of Exhibit-A4(a) and also the handwriting of a sentence shown at the side of page No. 2 of Exhibit-A4(a) are almost the