Cordial principles for proof of execution of wills.

Mishra, J.

The caveators/defendants in a testamentary proceeding have appealed questioning the grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of late K.Kulasekaran alias A.K.Sekhar who died on 6th August, 1976. Under the said Will Sekhar bequeathed certain properties to his three daughters appointing two sons-in-law as executors of the Will.

The Will had been deposited in the Bank of Baroda by the testator himself.

2. In response to the citation issued, the appellants who are the sons of the testator A.K.Sekhar contested the case of the bequeath to the daughters only alleging that there was no occasion for the testator to execute the Will in their favour since he had already gifted jewels and cash to them. They brought on record the fact that in the year 1972, the testator had executed settlement deeds and gifted one house each to his four sons. He never thus, according to them intended to give any property to his daughters and alleged that the Will must have been obtained by the sons-in-law and the daughters exercising undue influence and compulsion upon the testator and that the Will could not have been written by their father with the free mind and without any pressure. They accordingly alleged that the Will appeared to be a fraudulent document got up by the daughters to defeat the rights of the sons. The testator who died four years after the execution of the Will was an Art Director in Film Studios. He had good wealth gained by the learning and profession of Art Director and in the property that he had acquired were five houses with appurtenant grounds in the City of Madras. In the year 1972 he executed a deed of settlement and gave four houses to his four sons, one house each. More than four years after the gifts deed in favour of the sons, he executed the impugned Will bequeathing the house property in a posh locality of the City of Madras to his three daughters.

3. The Will however which was brought to the Court from the Bank of Baroda, has been proved by one of the two attestors P.W.I, who also has been Assistant Director of Films at Madras. According to him, A.K.Sekhar executed a Will in his house at Mahadeva Iyer Street. Besides himself, one Thota Venkateswara Rao who was also an Assistant Art Director and working along with the testator, attested the Will. He deposed that the testator sent for him and when he went to his (testator’s) house, he found the other witness Thota Venkateswara Rao there. The testator showed him the papers and explained to him that he was making a Will and requested him and Thota Venkateswara Rao to attest the Will. After telling them about the Will, the testator signed the Will in their presence in each page of the document. Thereafter, P.W.I and Thota Venkateswara Rao attested the Will by affixing their signature. Thus, according to this witness, both the attesting witnesses as well as the testator signed the Will after knowing about its contents in the presence of each other. On the question about the health condition of the testator P.W.I staled that he was hale and healthy at the time of the execution of the Will and that the entire Will as written by the testator himself in his own hand. He claimed familiarity with the handwriting of the testator. The trial Court has found on the basis of the evidence that the execution of the Will has been proved. Noticing the cross-examination and some contentions as to the testimony of this witness, learned trial Judge has stated:

"Though there was lot of cross-examination of this witness, nothing worth mentioning was elicited from him. It is not challenged that P.W.I was the Assistant Director in films while the testator was the Art Director of prestigu-ous studios at Madras like Vauhini Studios, A. V.M.Studios. The other attestor is assistant Art Director, who the testator know for more than a quarter century. Therefore, these are the most competent and natural witnesses to attest the bequest of the testator who was working in the F