The burden to disprove a Will lies with contesting parties after the propounder meets initial proof requirements; mere non-registration or signature comparison is insufficient to establish suspicious circumstances.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda, in A.S. Nos.101 of 2012 and 112 of 2015 by which the judgment and decree rendered by the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, in O.S. No.645 of 2009 was set aside.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

An extent of 1.53 Acres of land in Survey No.1361 of Mattathur Village, Thrissur District, originally belonged to one Sankaran. He died in the year 2006, leaving behind his wife Sunanda, two daughters, and his son. The suit was instituted, claiming 1/4th share each in the plaint schedule property. The defendant resisted the suit by contending that on 13.10.2005, late Sankaran had executed a Will by rd which an extent of 20 cents in the south was provided to the 3 plaintiff, an extent of 15 cents in the north was provided to the 2^nd plaintiff and an extent of 10 cents to the further north, to the mother. On the western side, a 3.5- feet way was also provided. Thus, the total extent reserved for the plaintiffs was forty-five (45) cents and a larger extent for the defendant, where the Tharawad house is situated. The mother was provided with a life interest in the house. The defendant also raised a counterclaim for fixation of the boundary and declaration of title in respect of the share earmarked in the Will. The plaintiffs filed a replication questioning the execution of the Will and contending that the signature contained in the Will is not that of late Sankaran and that, late Sankaran, the father of the defendant and husband of the 1^st plaintiff, was not on good terms with his son, and therefore it is highly improbable that he would have executed the Will. On behalf of the plaintiffs, PW1 was examined, and Exts.A1 to A12 documents were produced before the trial court. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B3 documents were produced, and DW1 to DW3 were examined. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the defendant was successful in proving the execution of the Will and therefore declined the relief for partition. But then, a preliminary decree was passed in terms of the allotment made by late Sankaran in Ext.B1 Will. Thus, the counterclaim was allowed, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were restrained from committing any trespass into the counterclaim D schedule property. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred A.S. Nos.101 of 2012 and 112 of 2015 before the Additional District Court, Irinjalakuda. The first appellate court, on reappreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the signature in Ext.B1 Will is not that of the testator, late Sankaran. While arriving at a conclusion, the first appellate court, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872, compared the signature of late Sankaran in Ext.B1 Will and Ext.A1 partition deed and came to the conclusion that the signature of the testator in Ext.B1 Will is not genuine. It was also found that there were enough suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, and accordingly decreed the suits and dismissed the counterclaim and hence these appeals.

3. On 30.5.2017, this Court admitted the appeals and framed the following substantial question of law, which reads as under:

“Has the lower appellate court committed a grave error in the reappraisal of the evidence adduced by the propounder of the Will to prove the Will an