The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove the genuineness of a Will as per the statutory provisions and case laws, while dispelling any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.

S. Marimuthu, J.

1. This appeal has arisen against the Judgment in O.S. No. 8 of 1985 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam. First defendant is the appellant. That suit was originally filed as O.P. No. 389 of 1984 for granting letters of administration to the plaintiff under S.278 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the suit properties. Then, it was converted into the suit.

2. According to the plaintiff (first respondent herein), one Annamma alias Achamma, mother of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and sister of the 8th and 9th defendants and grandmother of defendants 10 to 15, was the owner of the plaint A schedule property measuring 1. acre 44 cents located in Sy. No. 231/13 of Vadayar Village, Kottayam District. She executed Ext. A-1 deed on 15th August 1981 bequeathing the plaint property, 1 acre and 44 cents, in favour of the plaintiff, with direction to the plaintiff, propounder of the Will to discharge some old debts and also to pay some cash to some of the defendants. The testatrix died on 25th February 3984 at the age of 77. The first defendant, appellant herein resisted the suit on the main ground that his mother was not in a sound state of disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will in question. She was, in fact, physically also ill and the plaintiff has brought the Will into existence with the collusion of the 4th defendant and it is a fabricated one. Therefore, no decree can be granted. The trial court on examining the contentions of both sides and also the evidence let in on their sides held that Ext. A-1 Will is proved and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the letters of administration as prayed for.

3. Learned counsel, Mr. V. P. Yohannan, appearing for the appellant contended that in. Ext. A-1 Will, the first defendant is excluded without any reason and the plaintiff alone is said to have been bequeathed to the entire immovable property and therefore, the disposal of the property under Ext. A-1 is unfair and unjust. In Ext. A-1, a direction is given to repay a loan, but that loan was already discharged. P.W. 2 the brother of the testatrix and the 8th defendant, the sister of the testatrix have attested the Will and no other independent witness or any neighbour of the testatrix has signed Ext. A-1 as attestor and no reason is also given by the plaintiff as to why the testatrix selected her close relatives who are residing far away from the residence of the testatrix, where the Will is said to have been executed. Thus, these are the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and those suspicious circumstances have not been dispelled by the plaintiff.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that P.W. 2 had deposed that he did not read the contents of the document, Ext. A-1 while he put his signature as an attestor and he came to the house of the testatrix only the testatrix put her last signature in the Will.Thus, the execution of Ext. A-1 has not been established as required by the provisions laid down in S.63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and S.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Balakrisha Iyer, appearing for the plaintiff/respondent would contend that there is no unfair or unjust disposal of the property in the Will in question. There is sufficient evidence that the testatrix was hale and healthy and she was in a sound state of mind on the date of execution of the Will. There arc also documentary evidence to the effect that propounder has to discharge a loan even on the date of Ext. A-1 Will. There is no hard and fast rule that close relatives should not attest the Will and normally, the testator or testatrix will have confidence in his or her close relations while executing the Will and in that circumstances, close relations necessarily will have to attest the Will. In this case on hand, a comparison of the admitted signature of the testatrix found in Ext. B-1 with the disputed signatures in Ext. A-1 would undo