The onus of proving a Will is on the propounder and that in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signatures of the attestors as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus.

1. - This is Civil Misc. First Appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 96 CPC against the judgment of learned District Judge, Jaipur dated 6th September, 1971 by which a probate of Will was granted to the applicant-respondent.

2. The applicant-respondent filed an application for grant of probate on 17-1-1966 in the court of District Judge Jaipur in respect of the last Will of late Smt. Jamna w/o Ram Kumar, executed on 1-8-1960 in favour of the respondent. Smt. Jamna died on 30-12-1960. A caveat was entered and in the reply filed on 9-7-1966 it was alleged in para No 2 that no Will was made by Smt. Jamna on 1-8-1960 and alleged that it was forged document. It was also mentioned in para No. 7 of the same that Smt. Jamna had executed a Will dated 12-12-59 in favour of the appellant which was duly registered and thereafter no Will had been executed by Smt. Jamna. Suraj Narain also filed a reply and took an objection that he is the reversioner of the property of deceased Smt. Jamna and she had no right to execute the Will to defeat his reversionary interest. Learned District Judge framed the following issues:

(1) Whether Mst. Jamna widow of Ram Kumar executed a Will on 1-8-1960 in favour of Prem Prakash and if so, whether she was of sound disposal mind?

(2) Relief?
There witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant and the original Will dated 1-8-1960 (Ex. 1) was produced and a Register of the Script petition Writer was also produced. In rebuttal, the caveater examined himself.

3. Mr. S.K. Keshote, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since litigation was pending between Smt. Jamna and father of the respondent, she could not have made the Will in favour of the respondent. He has drawn my attention to a certified copy of the judgment dated 10-2-1966 of this Court in Prahlad v. Suraj Narain and Ors. in which Smt. Jamna was also a party. It is stated by the learned Counsel that in his statement Om Prakash has stated that he informed his father Suraj Narain about the second Will in August, 1968, whereas from the judgment mentioned above, it is evident that an application was filed by Suraj Narain father of the respondent-applicant on 21st January, 1966 stating therein that Smt. Jamna had executed 2 Wills one in favour of the appellant and second in favour of son Prem Prakash therefore, plaintiff Prahlad in that case had no claim over the property left by Smt. Jamna. It is, therefore, argued that Prem Prakash is not a reliable witness and the alleged Will made in favour of the respondent is a forged document and no Probate could be granted on the basis of the same.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, Shri D.L. Bardar on the other hand has urged that the Will in favour of the respondent has been proved to the hilt by producing the attesting witness as script of the same and that the appellant has not led any evidence to show that the Will was forged and has merely tried to cause baseless suspicion on the basis of a judgment which has no bearing on the matter. Late Jamna was well within her rights to execute a second Will and since by the evidence on record it is fully proved that she did execute this Will, therefore the respondent-applicant was entitled to issue of Probate on the basis of the same.

5. I have heard the rival contention of the parties and also gone through the evidence and documents on the record. It will be seen from the judgment of Prahalad v. Suraj Narain that Suraj Narain filed a suit as nearest reversioner of Ram Kumar husband of Jamna defendant No. 4 in that suit, who had died in the year 1899. It was alleged in the suit that Mst. Jamna in collusion with Mst. Bhuri, defendant No. 1 had got a mortgage deed registered in favour of Banna Lal and Prahalad, defendants No. 2 and 3 respectively of the properties of which she was a limited owner for consideration of some time. it was alleged, amongst other things, that Mst. Bhuri was not widow of Radha Vallabh son