Where the dispositions made in the Will appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or the Will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind, the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as last will of the testator.

( 1 ) THIS is a first appeal from the order dt. 3-5-1976 of the learned District Judge, Dehradun which he passed on the petition that was moved by Smt. Sushila Devi one of the daughters of the deceased Smt. Jivini Devi for grant of letters of administration for the estate of the aforesaid deceased.

( 2 ) IN the said petition, the applicant contended that the testator, namely, Smt. Jiwani Devi executed a Will dt. 12-1-1965 in favour of her and her two more sisters, namely, Smt. Viddyawati and Smt. Bala Sundri. One Sri Ved Prakash who is the son of Smt. Viddyawati, filed a written statement stating that the Will dt. 12-1-1965. was not a genuine document and that was obtained by the beneficiaries under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation. He contended that the testator executed a will dt. 17-2-1965 in his favour and that alone is the enforceable and operative document.

( 3 ) THE learned District Judge framed the necessary issues and came to the conclusion that both the Wills dt. 12-1-1965 and 17-2-1965 had been duly executed and, therefore, the second Will dt. 17-2-1965 had superseded the first Will. It is for this reason, the petition for grant of letters of administration for the estate of the deceased Smt. Jiwani Devi on the basis of the Will dt. 12-1-1965 made by the applicant Smt. Sushila Devi, was dismissed.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, Smt. Sushila Devi has filed the instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that that District Judge erred in holding that-"it is obvious that Sri Ved Prakash and/or his mother must have entreated in the intervening period to persuade Smt. Jiwni Devi to modify her earlier decision. But there is no evidence or circumstances to lead to an inference that Smt. Jiwni Devi executed the Will without understanding it or under any undue influence. "it is submitted for the appellant that the first Will dt. 12-1-1965 depicted a more probable, natural and equitable arrangement by the testator. It is said that in ordinary course, Smt. Jiwani Devi would have taken care of all the three daughters equally and she would have bequeathed her property to all her daughters, as she did under the first Will dt. 12-1-1965 and that the second Will dt. 17-2-1965 is wholly suspicious arrangement and that the whole benefit under that Will was given to Ved Prakash, the son of one of the daughters of Smt. Jiwani Devi. It is argued that the arrangement in the second Will dt. 17-2-1965 would have been made by the testator only under the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances which have not been pointed out in this case at all. It is, therefore, argued that to show the free consent, fit mental condition and free will of the testator, the respondent 3 should have removed the entire suspicious circumstances and that the suspicion could not be removed merely by the fact that the second Will dt. 17-2-1965 was proved to have been signed by the testator. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent 3 is that the testator used to reside with Ved Prakash and his mother Smt. Viddyawati and that Ved Prakash alone took care of the testator and the remaining daughters of the testator having resided at far off places were neither inclined nor were they in a position to take care of the testator and, therefore, the arrangement under the first Will dt. 12-1-1965 was not natural and probable, but was a result of undue influence, coercion and misrepresentation. The matter has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid facts. I find force in the submissions of the appellant on that on the facts and circumstances of the case it would have been more natural or probable or equitable for the testator to execute the Will in favour of all the three daughters. The arrangement under the second Will dt. 17-2-1965 is neither equitable nor natural and, therefore, the respondent 3 should have estab