The propounder of a will has the onus to prove its genuineness and authenticity, especially when suspicious circumstances are present. Failure to discharge this onus may result in the rejection of the will.

1. The case of plaintiff is as follows: Krishna Bai, widow of late Bharamji Rao died on 8. 1982 at Madras, possessed of the properties. While she was alive she executed a will on 11. 1982 at Madras in the presence of the attestors who have attested the same. As per the provisions of the will the petitioner is the sole legatee and beneficiary being the husband’s brother’s son and after the death of Krishna Bai the plaintiff had fallen ill and was not in a position to apply to the Hon’ble Court. Hence the suit.

2. The defendant has filed the written statement pleading thus:

It is true that Krishna Bai died at Madras on 8. 1982. Krishna Bai could not have executed the will as she was bed-ridden, ill and unconscious. She was not in a sound on state of mind prior to the date of the alleged will. Thumb impression had been obtained without the knowledge and consent of Krishna Bai, apparently when she was in unconscious state of mind. By playing fraud upon the deceased the plaintiff has brought about the will. The attestors to the will are close associates of the plaintiff. The will is not genuine nor it is valid. The deceased was getting good rental income from the properties and she was not supported by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to the grant of probate. Further Krishna Bai did not have any capacity to execute a will in view of the provisions of the Family arrangement dated 30.4.1953. The defendant prays that the suit may be dismissed with costs.

3. The following issues were framed for trial:

.(1) Whether the will dated 8. 1982 was not executed by Krishna Bai?

.(2) Whether Krishna Bai was not in a position to execute the will voluntarily?

.(3) Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to get the letters of administration?

.(4) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

4. Issues 1 to 4 - Originally the application was filed in O.P.No.383 of 1986 for grant of probate. On the defendant lodging caveat and when the proceedings became contentious the petition was converted into testamentary original suit and thus happened to be numbered as T.O.S.No.3 of 198 7.

5. The plaintiff herein claims probate on the strength of the will dated 19. 1. 1982 alleged to have been executed by Krishna Bai bequeathing the properties in favour of the plaintiff. The contentions of the defendant is that Krishna Bai was laid up unconscious and was not in a sound state of mind and the will has been apparently fabricated by fraudulently obtaining her thumb impression while she was in such unconscious state and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to probate. It is first of all necessary for the plaintiff to prove the valid execution and attestation of the will. Now let us therefore proceed to analyse the case of the plaintiff to see if the valid execution and attestation of the will has been proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act as well. The will of course is a registered one. Merely because the will is a registered document no solemnity can be attached to the same. In fact the registration of the will cannot be regarded that as being equivalent to proof of capacity for making a will as held in the decision reported in the case of Sadachi Ammal v. Rajathi Ammal, AIR 1940 Mad. 135 . The importance of the registration of a will during the lifetime of the testator cannot be underestimated. But in assessing the significance of that fact, there is a well marked distinction between cases in which the subsequent dispute relates to the fact of execution and cases in which the question relates to the ‘testamentary capacity’ of the executant. It cannot therefore be said that the registration endorsements ‘completely’ prove t hat the document was read over to the executant and understood by him. Thus the registration is not a proof of testamentary capacity. Therefore the mere fact that the document viz., the will purports to be a registered instrument it does not in any way belittle or redu