The validity of a will must be established in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and suspicious circumstances surrounding a will may render it invalid.

Amol Rattan Singh, J.

This appeal has been filed by the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (now represented by his widow, son and daughter). The plaintiff, Mussadi, was the brother of appellants-defendants no.1 and 2, Khubi Ram and Tek Ram respectively and brother-in-law (husbands' brother) of defendant n.3, Champa Devi.

The 1st appellant-defendant, Khubi Ram, is also represented by his nine legal representatives, who are seen to be his widow, sons and daughters.

2. By his suit, the plaintiff had sought a decree of declaration with the consequential relief of possession of the suit property, to the extent of his share in the share of the late brother of the parties (brother-in-law of appellant-defendant no.3), Phool Singh. The relationship between the parties, at the outset is shown by a pedigree table in the judgment of the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar and is being reproduced hereinunder:-

Ram Nath = Shriyan
I
Phool Singh (died)	Chet Ram (died) = Champa Devi (widow of deft. no.3)	Khubi Ram (Defendant no.1)	Tek Ram (Defendant no.2)	Mussadi (Plaintiff)

As per the plaint, Phool Singh was a joint owner of property alongwith the husband of appellant-defendant no.3, namely Chet Ram, and appellant-defendant no.2 Tek Ram, i.e. he was a 1/3rd share holder in the total agricultural holding of 87 kanals and 1 marla, situated in village Jhajjar, then District Rohtak (now District Jhajjar). The suit land was fully described by way of rectangle, khewat, khatoni and khasra numbers in the plaint, which is not necessary to be gone into for the purpose of this appeal, such numbers of the suit land, or the total acreage thereof, not being in dispute.

3. As per the plaintiff, after the death of his brother, Phool Singh, his mother Shiriyan succeeded to the estate of Phool Singh and mutation no. 5595 was accordingly entered in her favour in the revenue record. Shiriyan thereafter died on 08.08.1982, leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as her legal representatives.

The defendants however produced a will dated 19.10.1981 allegedly executed by Shiriyan in their favour and accordingly, a mutation was entered in the revenue record though objected to by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further contended that the will was bogus, forged, null and void and invalid, for the reason that his mother was 90 years of age, suffering from rheumatism and was also deaf and dumb and was thus physically handicapped and not in a fit state of mind to execute any such will. Further, even it was found to have been executed, it was not the result of her free volition and consequently would have been obtained by exercising undue influence over her. Yet further, it was contended that it was never read over to her and the procedure of its registration was also improper as documents are never read out or thumb marked before the Sub-Registrar.

Lastly, it was contended that the plaintiff had also given assistance to his mother in her old age and therefore, there would have been no reason for her to discriminate between her children, completely ousting one of them from inheritance of her estate.

Hence, as per the plaintiff, he had not been excluded from her inheritance of the estate of his late brother.

4. Consequently, the suit was instituted on 09.03.1983 and upon notice issued to them, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement on 03.06.1983, admitting to the relationship between the parties, as also to the date of death of Shiriyan, i.e. 08.08.1982.

However, the validity of the will was obviously supported by the defendants, contending that it was duly registered on 19.10.1981 and that Shiriyan was very much in a sound disposing mind at the time of its execution and there was no undue influence or pressure exerted upon her to execute it.

It was further contended that the will had been read over to her