1. A Will must be proved like any other document, but with the additional requirement of attestation. 2. The propounder of a Will has the initial burden of proving its due and valid execution. 3. If there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, the propounder must remove those suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. 4. A scribe cannot be treated as an attesting witness unless he actually signed as an attesting witness. 5. The mere opening of an account as 'Either or Survivor' does not make the survivor the beneficiary or the owner of the amount.

1. First defendant in O.S. No. 1204 of 1984, on the file of Subordinate Judges Court, Tiruchirappalli, is the appellant. He dies after the filing of the Appeal, and his legal representatives have been impleaded as appellants 2 and 3.

2. The material facts may be summarised as follows:—

Defendants 1 to 3 and plaintiff are the sons and daughters of late Karuppanna Chettiar, who died on 1.9.1984. The property scheduled to the plaint, both ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively, belonged to the deceased. Defendants 4 to 6 are various financial institutions in which these amounts were deposited. It is said that since Karuppanna Chettiar died intestate, plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share, and defendants 1 to 3 are also equally entitled to one-fourth share each. Various demands were made to the defendants to co-operate with the plaintiff to effect a partition. Since the defendants refused to a ccede, suit was filed to pass a decree for partition by metes arid bounds and allot one-fourth share to the plaintiff and permit her to get possession of the same, after terminating joint possession.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant/first defendant, he said that on 9.7.1984, deceased has executed a registered Will wherein the ‘A’ Schedule properties have been bequeathed to him absolutely. It is further said that the Will was executed by the deceased while he was in a sound disposing state of mind, and the same was executed voluntarily. In so far as the ‘B’ Schedule properties are concerned, i.e. , deposits in various banks, the contention taken is that late Karuppanna Chettiar was not having any business ever since 1960, and the deposits were all made by him, and income from the business was utilised for making the various deposits. Even though the accounts stand as either or survivor, he is the exclusive owner. The allegation in the plaint that he is in constructive possession of the schedule properties is disputed. He prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Second defendant, who is the brother, also disputed the claim of first defendant that he is entitled to the moneys deposited in Banks. He also contended that at the time when the alleged Will is said to have been executed, the deceased was more than 90 years, arid was not in a position to look after himself. The deceased was with him for years together, and six moths prior to his death, appellant took him forcibly to his house. He was very weak in body and mind. In the year 1980, their mother fell ill, and thereafter the father also became very much upset and mentally weak. It is said that there was an iron safe with various articles and jewels. Exploiting the weakness of the father, respondent took possession of the same. The father did not have any sound disposing state of mind at the time when the Will was said to have been executed. He also said that the ‘B’ Schedule properties are really moneys belonging to him.

5. Third defendant remained ex parte .

6. Other defendants who are financial institutions, did not seriously contest, but only put forward a statement that they will abide by the directions of Court.

7. A reply statement was filed by plaintiff wherein she denied that the deceased has executed a Will. She also said that there is no attestation and the Will also not properly registered. She submitted that the contentions in the written statement of the first defendant are not true. She prayed for a decree in terms of the plaint.

8. Before the Court below, EXX. A-1 to A-6 were marked, and plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.

1. On the side of the defendants, Exx. B-1 to B-19 were marked. D.W. 1 is the first defendant. D.Ws

2 to 4 are the witnesses who have been examined to prove the Will Ex. B-5. D.W. 5 is the second defendant.

9. After evaluating the entire evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Will is not genuine, and the same cannot be taken as a legal bequest in favour of the appellant. The Court