The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus of proving the will on the propounder, the need to explain suspicious circumstances, and the importance of the registration of the will as a factor in favor of its genuineness.

P.C. Balakrishna Menon

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is against the dismissal of his application under S.278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the grant of letters of administration annexed to Ext. A1 Will executed by his late father Ouseph Mathai on 27-11-1962. The application was opposed by the first defendant. It was accordingly numbered and tried as a suit.

2. The plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of late Ouseph Mathai. He had six daughters of whom five were married on the date on which lie executed Ext. A1 Will. The youngest daughter Ealikutty still unmarried was staying with him until his death on 8-12-1962. Ouseph Mathai owned 1.40 Acres of garden land in Perumbavoor in three separate plots. In one of the plots, there is a shop building and in another one, there is a residential building. He owned also 42.50 cents of wet land. As per the Will Ext. A1 dated 27-11-1962 Ouseph Mathai has bequeathed his properties in favour of his three sons, namely; the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The properties are divided into four schedules as per the will. The B schedule consisting of 57 cents of garden land with a residential building is bequeathed to the first defendant The C schedule consisting of 21 cents of garden land is bequeathed to the plaintiff 36 cents of garden land and 21.25 cants of paddy land comprised in the D schedule are bequeathed to the second defendant. The A schedule takes in 26 cents of garden land with a shop building standing thereon and 21.25 cents of paddy land. The A schedule properties are also bequeathed to the plaintiff burdened with certain liabilities mentioned in the will. The plaintiff is directed to incur the expenses for the marriage of Ealikutty estimated at Rs. 600/-. He is directed to pay Rs. 200/- to the eldest daughter of the testator. A sum of Rs. 175/- is directed to be paid to Cheriyath Variyath in discharge of a debt due by the testator. The plaintiff is also directed to bear the expenses of certain religious ceremonies in a church estimated at a cost of Rs. 100/-. Thus in all he bequest of the A schedule properties to the plaintiff is burdened with a liability estimated at Rs. 1,075/-.

3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant. According to him Ouseph Mathai had no testamentary capacity at the time when he executed Ext. A1 will and for that reason the will is to be held as invalid and inoperative. The first defendant does not dispute the execution of the will by the testator. According to him Ext. A1 will happened to be executed at the behest of the plaintiff at a time when Ouseph Mathai was laid up in the Chidambaram Chettiar Memorial Hospital suffering from terminal cancer. The plaintiff was employed in North India in the Hindustan Construction Corporation. He came home only in November 1962 at a time when the father was seriously ill. Ouseph Mathai was admitted in the hospital. He had to undergo an operation and the will Ext. A1 was executed about a week after the operation. He was discharged from the hospital 10 or 11 days after the operation and he died on 8-12-1962. The will Ext. A1 is attested by PW 2, a coworker of the plaintiff. The Sub Registrar was brought to the hospital and the plaintiff got the will registered in the hospital. According to the first p defendant the testator had no testamentary capacity. The bequests under the will are not fair and equitable, and the will is also invalid on the ground that it was brought about by the plaintiff to enrich himself at the expense of defendants 1 and 2.

4. The court below has dismissed the suit on its finding that the propounder has not satisfactorily explained the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution and registration of the will.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the bequests under the will are not inequitable. The evidence in the case shows that the testator was in a sound state of mind and he had full testamentary capacity at the time when he executed the will. Coun