1920 Present : Bertram C.J. and Shaw J.

ANDRADO v. SILVA et al.

131-D. C. Colombo, 6,537.

Last will-Undue influence-Suspicious circumstances-Burden of proof- Observations as to the proper scope of medical evidence.-

Whenever a will is prepared and executed under circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court, it ought not to pronounce in favour of it, unless the party propounding it adduces evidence which would remove such suspicion and satisfies the Court that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the instrument.

" The burden of proof of undue influence is on those who allege it. It cannot be presumed. The burden of proving mental competancy, on the other hand, lies on the propounders. They are not bound to show affirmatively that the testator's mind is free from any influence which the law considers ' undue ' . . . . I do not mean to say that the principle that it is the duty of the propounders to remove suspicions does not apply to undue influence. I think it does so apply in exactly the same manner as it applies to fraud . . . . If the circumstances are such that a suspicion

arises that the apparent approval