A Will's validity requires proof of its execution; mere allegations of forgery or suspicious circumstances are insufficient without substantial evidence to counter the probative force of the registered Will.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

The appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful defendant before the Sub Court, Chengannur in A.S. No.20 of 2018, by which the judgment and decree in O.S. No.85 of 2014 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Chengannur, was reversed.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, claiming1/3^rd share each in the plaint schedule property on the ground that the alleged Will, stated to be executed by the mother of the plaintiffs in favour of the sole defendant, is fabricated. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had forged Will No.173/2013, and the signature of the mother in the Will is fabricated and forged. At the time of execution of the Will, their mother had no testamentary capacity to dispose the property. The execution of the Will was thus denied completely. One of the extenuating circumstances, which, according to the plaintiffs, would test the validity of the Will, is regarding the age of the mother, who was 93 years old at the time of execution of the Will, and that she was suffering from various ailments. The defendant entered appearance and contested the suit, contending that the Will was validly executed and the suit was not maintainable either on the law or on the facts. The averment in the plaint that the mother was being taken care of by the 1^st plaintiff was denied, and, on the contrary, it was asserted that it was the defendant who had taken care of the mother. The defendant further denied the suggestions regarding the fabrication of the Will and contended that the Will was validly executed as a registered document and was attested by two attesting witnesses. On behalf of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 to A14 documents were produced, and PW1 to PW5 were examined. On behalf of the defendants, Ext.B1 Will was produced, and DW1 to DW8 were examined. Exts.C1, C1(a) and C1(b) were marked as Court Exhibits. Exts.X1 to X5 were marked subject to objection. The trial court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, framed the following questions for consideration:

1. Whether the Will deed No.173/13 is void as alleged?

2. Whether the testator was having sound disposing state of mind at the time of executing the Will deed?

3. Whether the Will No.173/13 is the last Will and testament of the deceased as contended?

4. Whether the plaint schedule property is partible?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for partition as claimed?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for?

7. Reliefs and costs.

3. As regards the plea of forgery and execution of the Will, the trial court, on the basis of the evidence of DW7 and DW8, found that the Will was validly executed. It was further found that, as regards the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the defendant was successful in dispelling the suspicious circumstances carved out by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. No.20 of 2018 before the Sub Court, Chengannur, and the Sub Court, by judgment and decree dated 29.1.2019, reversed the findings of the trial court, and the suit was decreed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, Chengannur. While allowing the appeal, th