A Will must be duly executed in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the propounder of the Will has the burden of proving that the Will was executed by the testator with a sound disposing mind and in the absence of any suspicious circumstances.

( 1 ) CORRECTNESS of the judgment rendered in the Misc. Appeal No. 146/94, preferred under S. 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has affirmed the orders passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and Misc. Judicial Case No. 86/87, is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under S. 276 of the Act for grant of probate in respect of the properties of one Mrs. Mavis Ada Lynch, on the ground that she had executed a Will on 18-6-1983 in their favour bequeathing of her movable and immovable properties. It was averred in the said application that the Will was written in her own hand and she had executed it. The present appellant, the caveator, did not file any formal objection to resist the application but filed an application forming the subject-matter of Misc. Judicial Case No. 86/86 for grant of probate on the basis of subsequent Will executed by Mrs. Lynch. In the said application the present appellant claimed that Mrs. Lynch had executed a Will dated 15-8-1987 in his favour and she did so on account of the fact that he was living in the same Bungalow and was known to her for the last two decades. It was also pleaded that she was managing her affairs and performed the last rites. The respondents herein vehemently opposed the application under S. 276 of the Act at the instance of the appellant herein. They denied the execution of the Will dated 15-8-1987. They also disputed the fact that the appellant lived with Mrs. Lynch. They also pleaded that Mrs. Lynch was not in fit condition to execute the Will. They also took the stand that the Will was got executed through Shri Jagdish Tiwari, Advocate who was on friendly terms with the appellant and the attesting witnesses.

( 3 ) THE Court of first instance accepted the Will dated 18-6-83 as validly executed and attested, and accordingly granted probate to the respondents. He did not accept the Will dated 15-8-87 and held it to be a suspicious document. It is to be noticed here that the appellant preferred Misc. Appeal No. 146/94 challenging the order passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and later on paid the Court-fee and challenged both the orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge.

( 4 ) IT is relevant to state at this juncture that the original Will dated 18-6-83 was not found during the pendency of the Misc. Appeal and by order dated 9-11-96 a learned Judge of this Court ordered an enquiry in the matter. On the enquiry it was found that the original Will was kept in the record of the case and entire record was sent to this Court. The learned Judge has dealt with this aspect and has observed that on account of negligence of the officers of the Court the Will was lost. The learned Judge has also opined that the probate can be granted on the basis of the photocopy of the Will and has referred to Section 237 of the Act. He has also observed that the original Will was produced before the trial Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70/87 and was marked as 'annexure A-1'. Eventually, the learned Judge has held that the Will was in existence on record till the date of passing of final order on 15-2-94.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge after scrutiny of the evidence in detail has come to hold that the Will dated 18-6-83 was executed by the testatrix in favour of the respondents, was proved to have been written in her own handwriting, and was signed in presence of Mr. and Mrs. Laughran, Mr. Jones and Mr. Cardis and, therefore, the Will had been duly attested. The learned Judge has placed reliance on the evidence of AW-6, David Laughran and Chandramaya Laughran, PW-7 and had concluded that there had been complete corroboration by the witnesses who have standing in the society. The learned Judge has also observed that the appellant did not seriously dispute the execution and atte