A Will may be declared invalid if it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, such as when it is not set up in the first instance in the written statement, the scribe of the Will is not produced, and the attesting witnesses are from the same village as the defendants.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1791 of 1976, as both of them arise out of the one Judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jullundur, dated September 30, 1976.

2. Naranjan Singh son of Khem Singh was the owner of the suit property. He died on January 3, 1971, without leaving behind any wife or child. Jagjit Singh, Gian Singh Chinti and Prito, claiming themselves to be his heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, (hereinafter called the Act) being the sons and daughters of Nemi, sister of Naranjan Singh, filed the suit for possession of 35 kanals 2 marlas of land left by him. On the other hand Gurmit Singh, Faqir Singh and Ujagar Singh, defendants, claimed that Naranjan Singh, deceased, had executed a Will in their favour on October 4, 1969 with respect to the suit land. Amro, Dhanti and Punna claiming themselves to be the heirs of the said Naranjan Singh also filed a suit for possession of the 3/7th share of the suit land. Both the suits were consolidated by the trial Court. The plaintiffs described the said Will to be a sham and fictitious document as Naranjan Singh, deceased, was an old, infirm and of weak mental capacity and had no sound disposing mind. Mutation No. 2470 with respect to the suit land was sanctioned on February 19, 1971. On the basis of the alleged will in favour of Gurmit Singh and others which was challenged in the suit filed by Jagjit Singh and others. The suits were contested on behalf of the defendants inter alia on the plea that the plaintiffs were not related to the said Naranjan Singh, as alleged and, therefore, they had no right to succeed to his estate. The will dated October 4, 1969, was described to be a validly executed document while in a sound disposing mind by the testator. It may be mentioned here that in the first written statement filed on December 2, 1972, the defendants set up an earlier registered Will dated November 23, 1966, which had been admittedly, revoked subsequently on December 9, 1968. Not only that, the defendants sought amendment of the written statement which was allowed. Even in the amended written statement dated April 28, 1973, reliance was placed by them on the registered Will dated November 23, 1966. Amendment of the written statement was again (for the second time) sought, which was allowed. By virtue of the amended written statement dated July 23, 1973, the defendants set up the Will dated October 4, 1969, Exhibit D-1, for the first time. The trial Court, found that the plaintiffs were the heirs of Naranjan Singh, deceased, under the Act, and thus they had the locus standi to file the suits. It was also found that the earlier Will dated November 23, 1966, was duly revoked by Naranjan Singh vide revocation deeds dated December 9, 1968, Exhibit PX. As regards the Will dated October 4, 1969, Exhibit D-1, it was found that it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and, therefore, it was held that the said Will was not a genuine Will of Naranjan Singh, deceased. In view of these findings, both the suits filed by the plaintiffs were decreed. Two appeals were filed on behalf of the defendants. Therein, the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Will, Exhibit D-1, dated October 4, 1969, was a validly executed document and was duly proved as such. According to the learned counsel, once the said Will was duly proved, then, it was for the other party to show that it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances which they had failed to prove by any cogent evidence. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ajit Chandra v. Akhil Chandra, AIR 1960 Calcutta 551 and Lal Singh (deceased) v. Surjit Singh, 1972 Punjab Law Journal 296. It was also contended that the