The mere registration of a Will is not enough to hold that the Will was duly executed and the propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicions surrounding the execution of the Will.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This defendants second appeal.

2. The dispute relates to the property of Jaswant Singh who died issued less and without wife on 5.10,1978. following is the admitted pedigree-table of the parties

Jhanda Singh

____________________________________________________________________

: : :

Sucha Singh Jaswant Singh Kundha Singh

(died issue less

and without any :

descendent). :

:

______________________________________ ________________

: : : :

Khanda Singh Chatain Kaur Natha Chhota Singh

(Defendant (daughter Singh (Plaintiff)

No. l) Deft. No. 4) (Plaintiff)

_______________________________________

: : :

Makhan Darshan Parkash

Singh Singh Kaur

Deft. No. 2) (Deft. No. 3)

Plaintiffs, who are the nephews of Jaswant Singh, filed suit for possession inter alia on the ground that after the death of Jaswant Singh, they became the owners of 1/2 share of the land in dispute, but the defendants on the basis of fabricated and fictitious Will took possession of the entire land, and got a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in their favour. Plaintiffs also sought decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the land.

3 Defendants No. 1 to 3 contested the suit. In their written statement, they pleaded that Jaswant Singh used to live with Khanda Singh, i.e. defen dant No. 1 and was being served by them. Jaswant Singh had a great love and affection for them and, accordingly, he executed a registered Will dated 4.10.1978 in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether Jaswant Singh, deceased, executed a valid will in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3? OPD

2. Relief.

The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence, found issue No. 1 against the defendants and accordingly held that propounders of the Will have failed to dispel the material suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will in question. As a result of this finding, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Defendants have now impugned the judgments and decrees of the Courts in this second appeal.

5 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Courts below did not apply judicial mind to appreciate the evidence brought on record. He further contended that merely because the testator died one day after the registration of Will, is not indicative of the fact that he was not in a sound disposing mind or there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. He read in extenso the statements of attesting witnesses as well as of the scribe, and contended that from the evidence stands fully established that the testator of his own volition executed the Will in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. He has also placed on record the synopsis of his arguments.

6. It is not necessary to cite various decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to mode of proving the Will. It stands settled that the Will is to be proved like any other document. The test to be applied is the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a Will to be attested by atleast two witnesses. Where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the