The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding its validity, particularly when substantial benefits accrue to them, or the Will may be deemed invalid.

1. Present is an appeal under S.299 of the Indian Succession Act , 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') wherein challenge has been made to the judgment dated 23.11.2009 passed by the ld. Addl. District Judge in Probate Case no. 465/2006 whereby the probate petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under : -
Appellant had filed a probate petition for the grant of probate of Will dated 20.5.2003 alleged to have been executed by her mother, Smt. Amarjeet Mamik w/o late Shri D.S. Mamik, in respect of property no. D - 179, Defence Colony, New Delhi excluding its ground floor. The mother of parties i.e. appellant and respondents No. 2 and 3 had died on 21.5.2006. The appellant is the executor named and one of the beneficiaries in the said Will. It was alleged that the Will dated 20.5.2003 was executed by her mother in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Major General Manjit Ahluwalia r/o D - 34, Defence Colony, New Delhi and Sh. Urvinder S. Kohli r/o 227, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. It was further alleged that her father was the owner of the aforesaid property constructed on a plot of land measuring 325 Sq.yards comprising of a ground floor, first floor, terrace thereon and an annexe block of garage and servant quarter thereon. It was stated that the ground floor of the aforesaid property had already been gifted to the appellant by her father vide registered gift deed dated 25.1.2001. Her father had bequeathed to the testatrix i.e., Smt. Amarjeet Mamik the first floor, the terrace thereon and all other portion of the aforesaid property except the ground floor vide registered Will dated 14.2.2001. Her father predeceased her mother. The testatrix died on 21.5.2006 leaving behind two daughters, namely, Smt. Kavita Kanwar, Smt. Pamela Mehta i.e. appellant and respondent no. 2 and one son Col. Prithvijit Mamik, respondent no. 3. It was further alleged that by virtue of aforesaid Will the assets which were likely to come in the hands of the appellant were the first floor and other portions of the aforesaid property save and except the ground floor of the building and to carry out the two options of constructing either on the terrace of the first floor of the said building or to demolish the said building and to reconstruct and give the highest floor of the said building to respondent no. 2 and retaining the terrace rights thereon. It was alleged that as per aforesaid Will, the balance in the saving bank account maintained with Central Bank of India, Defence Colony as mentioned in Schedule - B annexed with Probate Petition would go to her brother Col. (Rtd.) Prithvijit Mamik i.e., respondent no. 3. It was therefore prayed that probate in respect of aforesaid Will be granted in favour of the appellant.

3. Respondent no. 2 initially did not file any objections to the petition or written statement before the ld. ADJ. Later on when the case was at the stage of evidence, respondent no. 2 sought permission to file written statement which was dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2008 passed by the ld. ADJ. However, respondent no. 2 continued to contest the matter.

4. Respondent no. 3 had filed objections before the ld. ADJ by contending that the Will propounded by the petitioner was forged and fabricated one and the same was not executed by the deceased. It was alleged that no reason had been given in the Will in question as to why respondent no. 3 had been excluded from the property by his mother i.e., testatrix. It was further alleged that there was no dispute between respondent no. 3 and his mother and there was no reason why the deceased would exclude respondent No. 3 from inheriting the property. Respondent no. 3 had also disputed the signature of the deceased on the Will. It was further alleged that the Will dated 20.5.2003 on the face of it was a forged one. The respondent No. 3 had further alleged that the property alleged to have bequeathed in favour of the peti