JUDGMENT

Madeley, J - This is an appeal by Mt. Ram Rani and Aharwa Din, her son, against an order granting letters of administration with the copy of the will attached to Mt. Indarni in respect of the estate of Pandit Gopal Prasad of Khalishat, Rae Bareli, who died on 25th June 1940. Mt. Ram Rani is the sister of the late Pandit Gopal Prasad and she opposed the grant of letters of administration on the grounds that she and her son are the rightful heirs, that Mt. Indrani was not permanently kept mistress of the deceased nor is she an universal legatee, that the deceased was not in his right mind ' when he executed the will and that he did not express his true intention. It is said that Mt. Indrani had no right to make the application. The learned District Judge of Rae Bareli decided these points against the objectors and granted the letters of administration with the copy of the will attached. The objectors have now come in appeal. The learned lower Court found that the will was in fact executed by Pandit Gopal Prasad during a severe attack of cholera, that Pandit Gopal Prasad died 12 days later, and it believed the evidence that he improved for four or five days after the will had been executed. He then developed cardiac troubles and died. It further finds that a draft of the will had been made about a year before this illness and that the draft was not altered when a fair copy was made and it was executed. All these findings are based upon reliable evidence of independent witnesses.

2. The appellants' learned Counsel, however, argues, in contradistinction to the argument used by the learned lower Court, that the fact that this draft had been in possession of Pandit Gopal Prasad for a year before his illness shows that he had no intention of executing it. I cannot agree with this contention. It appears to me that the deceased had this draft prepared so that he could execute it at a short notice at any time, and that when he fell seriously ill he decided to execute it. I take the same view as the trial Court, namely that the early preparation of the draft indicates that it expressed the real intentions of Pandit Gopal Prasad which he endorsed while he was in his right mind though he was ill. Another point raised by the appellants is that while the fair copy was being read out the witnesses etc., had to leave the room because Pandit Gopal Prasad began to vomit and purge. This fact, however, cannot go to show that he was not in his right mind. Further appellants' learned Counsel argues that if Pandit Gopal Prasad had intended to execute this will, he would also have had it registered. As, however, it is not invalid for want of registration, there is no particular reason why he should have had it registered.

3. Counsel's argument that the will is so highly suspicious that the burden of proof should have been thrown heavily upon the applicant and that the lower Court erred in not placing it rightly, is also not correct. In the first place there is nothing exceptionally suspicious about the will which is in favour of the lady whom Pandit Gopal Prasad had been keeping as his concubine for 12 years. Naturally he would wish to provide for her. In the second place, the lower Court did not place the burden of proof initially upon the objectors but upon Bit. Indrani. There can be no doubt that she discharged the burden satisfactorily by the production of very good evidence. As to the objectors' evidence, which has not been specially relied upon by appellants' learned Counsel, it has been satisfactorily dealt with in the judgment of the lower Court and it cannot for a moment stand in fact of the strong evidence of the applicant. A question of law has also been raised in appeal, which is not mentioned in the grounds, though it was touched upon in the written statement where it is denied that Mt. Indrani is the universal legatee. Section 232 runs:

When (a) the deceased has made a will, but has not appointed an executor or (b) the deceased h