The burden of proof in proving a will, the need to remove all legitimate suspicions to the satisfaction of the court, and the principles governing the proving of a will as per the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act.

( 1 ) SMT. Saguna Prem Manohar Sharma D/o Late Prem Manohar Sharma W/o Shri Jogesh Kumar sharma filed Testamentary Case No. 9/94 for grant of Letters of Administration with the will annexed, executed by her father Shri Prem Manohar Sharma (hereinafter called as the deceased)dated 13. 5. 78, bequeathing all his properties except Farm House, Plot No. 230 on the plaintiff. The will provides that the Farm House and the entire movable properties shall devolve on Smt. Prem Lata, the wife of the deceased, and appointed Smt. Prem Lata as guardian of the plaintiff, to control and manage all immovable properties, which shall devolve upon her after his death.

( 2 ) SHRI Prem Manohar died on 15. 5. 78 at his residence Prayag Agricultural Farm, Garh Road, meerut. Smt. Prem Lata Manohar, the wife of Shri Prem Manohar also died on 16. 11. 88. The testamentary Case was filed on 12. 4. 94 i. e. after 15 years and 11 months of the death of the testator.

( 3 ) IT is alleged in para 2 of the plaint that the deceased had earlier executed a will dated 9. 1. 76 in favour of the plaintiff and had appointed her mother as executor of the will. This will, however, was cancelled by the will dated 13. 5. 78. The petition encloses affidavit of Lt. Col. Guru Bux singh Siddhu and Shri Siya Ram Singh, the attesting witnesses to the Will and a schedule of movable and immovable properties of the deceased, which include agricultural land (total area 17 bigha 19 biswa and 4 biswansis), old farm house situated in Khasra No. 230m, new farm house, go downs, servant quarters, garage, swimming pool and other assets valued at Rs. 5,30,508. 50/ -.

( 4 ) SHRI Chater Sen Gupta, Shri Om Prakash Jain, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Shri Prem Chand Jain, shri Rakesh Kumar, Shri Mukesh Kumar, Shri Jai Prakash, Smt. Satyawati Gupta, Shri dependra Kumar, Shri Suraj Bhan, Shri Mool Chand and Shri Satish Chand, opposite parties, made an application for impleadment on 11. 1. 95 on the ground that after the death of Shri Prem manohar, his widow Smt. Prem Lata inherited the entire properties and after her death his nephew Shri Anil Kumar and others got their names mutated on the basis of a forged will. Smt. Prem Lata filed objection and her name was ordered to be recorded in the revenue papers. She wanted to sell the properties and that on 18. 12. 81 she entered into an agreement to sell the properties for Rs. 4,82,000/- and received an advance of Rs. 2,41,000/- after which she was also paid Rs. 1,18,000/- by Bank Pay Order on 5. 4. 82. She avoided to execute the sale deed on which a suit for Specific Performance of Contract No. 608/82 was filed by Shri Chatar Sen Gupta and others against Smt. Prem Lata in which a compromise was filed in terms of which the Civil judge, Meerut passed an order to execute the sale deed within 15 days after taking no objection from the Income Tax Department. She, however, came under the influence of Madan Sharma, a partner of colonizing firm M/s Ram and Co. , Meerut and backed out from sale. In Execution Case no. 42/82 the Court executed the sale on 27. 1. 83 after getting the balance sale consideration.

( 5 ) IT is further alleged that Smt. Prem Lata challenged the compromise decree, in Misc. Case No. 55/83 on the ground of fraud, on which the delivery of possession was stayed. The objection of smt. Prem Lata was dismissed on 10. 8. 84. The Court found that the compromise in decree No. 608/82 was not fraudulent. Smt. Prem Lata filed a writ petition in the High Court in which initially the delivery of possession was stayed. The ex-parte order was, however, vacated in january, 1985 and the Court ordered delivery of possession through police. It is at this stage that the plaintiff Smt. Saguna came in collusion with Smt. Prem Lata and filed a Suit No. 157/85 on 12. 2. 85 on the basis of will dated 13. 5. 78. The suit is still pending. The defendants contend in paragraph 17 that Smt. Saguna having knowledge of the entire proceedings did not imple