The onus of proving the execution of a will lies on the propounder, and the probate court should not determine questions of title or the validity of the bequest.

N.K.Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order of a learned single Judge whereby he allowed the petition filed by Hardyal Singh Dhillon-respondent under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, the Act) for the grant of a probate. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal may first be noticed.

2. Kirpal Singh Dhillon retired as Assistant Director of Industries, Punjab and he died on October 31, 1979 at the age of about 67 years. At the time of death he owned the following properties:-

i). House No. 148, Sector 27-A at Chandigarh;

ii). Agricultural land measuring 48 Kanals 10 Marlas and one vacant residential site besides a tubewell at his native village Talwandi Abdar, Tehsil & District Jalandhar; and

iii). 2 deposits of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- with private companies besides some other movable property.

He has left behind three sons and two daughters besides his widow. Hardyal Singh Dhillon-respondent who is his eldest son and as a bachelor filed a petition under Sections 276/278 of the Act for the grant of a probate in regard to the will dated July 22, 1978 said to have been left by his father late Sardar Kirpal Singh Dhillon bequeathing his entire property in favour of the petitioner-respondent. The will in original was annexed with the petition. The widow of the testator and his other children were impleaded as respondents besides the general public.

3. In response to the notice issued, Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon-appellant opposed the petition. In his written statement he denied that Kirpal Singh Dhillon ever signed or executed the Will dated July 22, 1978. It was pleaded that the Will propounded by Hardyal Singh Dhillon-respondent was a forged document and altogether unnatural. According to the appellant it was not stated in the Will where it had been executed and the witnesses who purported to have attested the Will were neither related to the testator nor were the residents of the locality where the testator resided. It was further pleaded by the appellant that Hardyal Singh Dhillon remained posted in connection with his service at various stations outside Chandigarh and, therefore, he could not serve his late father and on the contrary the appellant who remained posted at Rajpura lived with the father and served the testator. It was also alleged that the property left by the deceased was ancestral.

4. In their separate written statement the widow of the deceased and his daughters (sisters of the appellant) admitted the claim of Hardyal Singh Dhillon and stated that they had no objection to the grant of probate in his favour.

5. Hardyal Singh Dhillon controverted the averments of the appellant by filing a replication in which it was pleaded that the property in question was self-acquired property of the testator.

6. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following two issues:-

1. Whether the will dated 22.7.1978 is the duly and legally executed last testament of the deceased-Sardar Kirpal Singh Dhillon? OPP.

2. Whether the probate/letter of administration is liable to be refused on the facts stated in the additional pleas of the written statement of respondent-6? OPR.

7. After examining evidence led by the parties and considering the respective submissions made by their counsel, the learned Judge as per his order of April 5, 1991 decided both the issues in favour of the petitioner-respondent and consequently allowed the petition. Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon who alone contested the petition has come up in appeal.

8. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. It is by now well settled that the functions of a probate Court are to see that the Will has been actually executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind without coercion or undue influence and that it has been duly attested. It is not competent for such a Court to determine whether the testator had or had not the power to dispose of the property which he purports to di