A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstances.

1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the cancellation of the will dated 2-2-83 executed by Smt. Muneshwari Devi bequeathing the entire property, etc. in favour of the defendant Smt. Chandravasa Devi. The plaintiff Smt. Duleshwari and the defendant are real sisters and their mother is the person, who had executed the will. The plaintiff alleged that the property was owned by her father Basdeo, who died about 25 years ago and upon his death, the entire property was inherited by her mother, Smt. Muneshwari Devi. It was alleged that the plaintiff's mother was an illiterate, rustic and a pardahnashin lady and had died on 25-6-1983 at the age of 75 years. The plaintiff alleged that she used to stay with her mother from time to time in order to help her out in her household affairs. Between October 1982 to May 1983, the plaintiff could not visit her mother, as she herself, was unwell on account of a shooting pain in her stomach, which was later on, diagnosed as appendicitis. When she got well, she again came and stayed with her mother and looked after her. The plaintiff alleged that, ten days before her mother's death, she became unwell and at that time, she desired to execute a will in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant. The husband of the defendant, Sri Vipin Bihari Pandey stated that there was no need to execute a will, as upon the mother's death, both her daughters would inherit the property in equal share. After her mother's death, the husband of the defendant moved an application for mutation of the name of the defendant in the revenue records on the basis of the will dated 2-2-83. It was then the plaintiff came to know about the fraud played by the defendant and her husband.

2. The plaintiff alleged that her mother had orally gifted a piece of land to a priest, Sri Ram Awadh Pandey, a couple of years ago and wanted to execute a sale deed / gift deed in his favour. For this purpose she had gone with the defendant and her husband on 2-2-83 to get the sale deed executed in favour of Ram Awadh Pandey. The defendant and her husband, without the mother's knowledge and consent, also got her to place her thumb impression on some loose papers and got prepared a forged will. The plaintiff alleged that her mother was also hard of hearing and that she did not execute the will knowingly or willingly and that she had no intention to bequeath the entire property in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that the husband of the defendant used to look after the affairs of the mother and that the defendant and her husband had played a fraud upon the plaintiff's mother and got a will executed in favour of the defendant without her consent and knowledge. The plaintiff prayed that the alleged will dated 2-2-83 which had been registered before the Sub-Registrar be cancelled and, that, she was entitled to the possession of her share of the property left by her mother.

3. The defendant contested the suit and submitted that the plaintiff never stayed with her mother nor looked after her. The plaintiff was a teacher in a Government school and was residing in another village and therefore, the question of staying with her mother did not arise. The defendant further alleged that she was the younger daughter of her mother and after her marriage, she along with her husband continued to stay with her mother and looked after her. The defendant also alleged that her mother always favoured her. The defendant further submitted that her mother was an intelligent woman and knew the wordly affairs and was not a rustic or a pardahnashin lady. She had a b