The propounder of a Will must remove all legitimate suspicion surrounding its execution. Failure to discharge this burden may lead to the dismissal of the appeal.

M. Venugopal, J.

O.S.A.No.379 of 2001 is filed by the appellant/ plaintiff as against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2001 passed in T.O.S.No.20 of 1990 in dismissing the suit with costs.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has filed T.O.S.No.20 of 1990 seeking to issue a probate in respect of the Will dated 17.09.1986 executed by Alamelu Ammal.

3. After contest, the learned Single Judge has inter alia come to the conclusion that the Ex.P.1-Will dated 17.09.1986 is tainted with invalidating factors and should have come into existence under suspicious circumstances, which the plaintiff has not explained properly and held that the appellant/plaintiff thoroughly failed to prove that the said Will was executed by Alamelu Ammal and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.01.2001 in T.O.S.No.20 of 1990, the plaintiff has preferred O.S.A.No.379 of 2001 as an appellant.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff, the learned Single Judge fell into error in initially assuming that there are suspicious circumstances in regard to the Ex.P.1-Will dated 17.09.1986 and that the propounder failed to clear the same and that the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the evidence of Mr.Ravichandran, Assistant at Sub Registrar Main Office who produced the register containing the signatures of Alamelu and that the adverse inference drawn against the appellant/ plaintiff on his failure to produce the original will is not correct and there are absolutely no suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will and the doubt in regard to the signature of Alamelu in Ex.P.1-Will merely on the ground that in Ex.D.8 the signature is as Alamelu Ammal and the reasons assigned for rejecting the evidence of

P.W.2 by the learned Single Judge are not fair and proper and that the learned Single Judge was wrong in assuming that P.W.2 saw the original Will from not appreciating his evidence when he deposed that he saw the Will and that the evidence of P.W.2 is not that he saw the original Will and that per contra the learned Single Judge ought to have held that the execution of the Will was duly proved and therefore, prays for allowing the appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is clear evidence in the instant case on hand, to prove the due execution of the Will and therefore, when once the due execution is established the Court is not concerned with the manner of disposition or contents thereof, which is exclusive domain of the testator.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff cited the decision 2006-4-L.W.-24 Dr.A.Ravikumar V. M.Savithiri and others, whereunder it is held as follows:

"Will/Genuineness – Suspicious circumstance, what is – Order of trial judge rejecting application for Probate set aside – Bequest in favour of second wife and her sons (Appellant and R1, R2) upheld, as against objection by the first wifes daughter (R4) – Will which has been produced and proved is the Will prepared by carbon process, an exact copy of the other document which has been now produced – Merely because there is some omission to indicate the address of the attesting witnesses in the first page of such document, which was already executed by the executant and attested by the attesting witnesses, no suspicion can be raised against the due execution of the Will.

Fact that the testator had not indicated about the execution of the Will to his sister or even to other members including the daughter, such circumstance cannot be considered as a ground to discard the Will, when execution of such Will has been proved through independent witness – Conclusion of the learned single Judge that the Will had not been executed and there is suspicious circumstance cannot be sustained".

7. He also relied on 2006-2-L.W.-658 Pentakota Satyanarayana and others V. Pentakota Seetharatnam and others, wherein it is