JUDGMENT L.G. Mukerji, Actg. C.J. and Thom, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiffs to obtain a declaration that a certain document bearing the date 30th of January 1925 is not the will of their late father Ram Chander Misra. 2. The Plaintiffs are the two daughters of Ram Chander and the Defendant No. 8 is his widow. Ram Chander, it appears, was married four times. By his first wife he had no issue. By one of his wives he had one of the Plaintiffs as his daughter. By another wife he had the ether Plaintiff as his daughter. The Defendant No. 8, Mt. Sheoraji the fourth wife is childless (sic) Ram Chander died at an age which has been estimated as between 65 and 70 years. By the will, the widow Mt. Sheoraji has been given a life-estate and the reversion has been given to the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7, who are Ramchander's collaterals living at the date or the will. 3. The Plaintiffs' case in the plaint was that Ram. Chander had been ailing for some months and he was taken to Benares to die there. While he was there some sort of document was taken from him but that it never represented Ram Chander's will. Ram Chander was not of sound disposing mind at the time. They also stated that the will was the result of undue influence. 4. The defence was that the will was a genuine document and that there was no undue influence brought to bear on Ram Chander in the execution of it and that Ram Chander executed the document while in possession of his senses. The court below decreed the suit, hence this appeal by the Defendants. 5. As regards the exclusion of the daughters the Defendants alleged that the reason was the existence of a custom by which the daughters did not inherit. On the question of custom, the learned Judge did not allow any evidence to be adduced, on the authority of the case of Risali v. Balak Ram (1912) 34 All.(sic)51 : 14 IC 639 : 9 A.L.J. 367. On the question of custom, the learned Judge did not allow any evidence to be adduced, on the authority of the case of Risali v. Balak Ram (1912) 34 All.(sic)51 : 14 IC 639 : 9 A.L.J. 367. The learned Counsel for the Defendants has argued that the case was not correctly decided and that in any case in view of the fact that the exclusion of the daughters has been made a ground for calling the will an unnatural will the Defendants ought to have been allowed to prove the existence of the custom. 6. We have considered the case of Risali v. Balak Ram (1912) 34 All.(sic) 51 : 14 IC 639 : 9 A.L.J. 367, and are of opinion with all respect that it lays down a sound rule of law. The suit has been instituted according to Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and the question to be decided is whether the Plaintiffs are or not such persons as are entitled to ask for a cancellation of the document which, if left outstanding, might do them serious injury. Nobody can say who would inherit the property on the death of Mt. Sheoraji. The daughters may not be at all living; their sons may be in existence and according to the custom alleged, the daughters' sons may not be excluded from inheritance. Then the widow, supposing she has had her husband's permission to that effect, may adopt a son to her late husband and in that case the daughters may not inherit at all nor even their sons. At the present moment therefore, the question of succession is a very distant affair. On the face of the existing circumstances the daughters have such an interest as would entitle them to ask the aid of the court in obtaining a declaration that the document is a forgery or that it is void or voidable. We hold therefore that the learned Judge in the court below was right in not permitting the Defendants to adduce evidence on the question of custom. 7. We hold therefore that the learned Judge in the court below was right in not permitting the Defendants to adduce evidence on the question of custom. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge on the authority of certain cases cited and discussed by him has held that the will propounded by the Defendants is one which was, at least, to some extent unnatural and the burden of proving that Ram Chander executed the document while in full possession of his senses lay heavily on the Defendants. There can be no doubt that this opinion is correct. 8. The will as we have already stated, gives a life-interest to the widow which she would have got without any life- interest being conferred on her by the document. Then the remainder has been given to the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 who or whose descendants would inherit the property if daughters and their sons were excluded, There is nothing to show that the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 did any particular service to Ram Chander and Ram Chander was particularly attached to them so that he should have any inclination to give the property to them to the exclusion of the daughters. Supposing that the daughters did not inherit on account of the existence of a custom, we should find at least two things then. If Ram Chander loved the daughters to the extent of giving them the property in spite of a custom, there was no difficulty in his way to giving them the property by his will. Supposing however that he agreed with the custom and was of opinion that the daughters as a rule should not inherit their father's property even if the distant relatives, being male agnates should, we ought to expect a clear mention of the fact that Ram Chander made up his mind with due deliberation and stated in the will that he was excluding the daughters, because of the existence of the custom and because he thought that the custom was one which he should follow. The will makes no direct mention of the daughters. It may be accepted that it does by way of implication In the will Ram Chander is made to say "I have no male issue." This expression may imply a statement on the part of Ram Chander that he had some daughters. The will makes no direct mention of the daughters. It may be accepted that it does by way of implication In the will Ram Chander is made to say "I have no male issue." This expression may imply a statement on the part of Ram Chander that he had some daughters. But this ambiguous statement would not explain his attitude of mind towards the daughters. The scribe Jwala Prasad, who according to the Defendants' case, took down the instructions as to the preparation of the will from Ram Chander himself says definitely in cross-examination that Ram Chander made no mention whatsoever of the daughters. 9. In the circumstances described above the will cannot be called a natural will and there being in existence no evidence to show that Ram Chander was particularly attached to the Defendants Nos. 1 to 7, it lay heavily on the Defendants to prove an intelligent execution of the document by Ram Chander. 10. Now we come to the evidence. 11. The Plaintiffs' case is that Ram Chander had been ailing for some time, they say, for six months, and that he was taken to Benares to die there because it is believed by the Hindus that a death in Benares is a cause of salvation. It is however common ground that Ram Chander came back from Benares and died at home. The Plaintiffs admittedly did not accompany their father but their step-mother states that Ram Chander was at Benares only for four days because nobody would accommodate him, seeing that he was going to die soon. 12. It has been argued that this case is not a true case and the statement of one of the Plaintiffs recorded in mutation proceedings has been produced to prove that she admitted in cross-examination that Ram Chander had stayed in Benares(sic) for a month. The party whose statement is relied on namely Mt. Gulabi did not disclose her source of information. It may be that she had heard from the Defendants themselves that Ram Chander had stayed for a month. 13. However we shall accept the Defendants' version that Ram Chander did stay at Benares for more than 4 days. Now we have to see what actually happened in Benares, and whether the will was executed in the manner alleged. 14. The story that emerges out of the evidence adduced by the Defendants is like this. 13. However we shall accept the Defendants' version that Ram Chander did stay at Benares for more than 4 days. Now we have to see what actually happened in Benares, and whether the will was executed in the manner alleged. 14. The story that emerges out of the evidence adduced by the Defendants is like this. One Sheo Saran a neighbour of the Defendants and Ram Chander lived in Banares and carried on some business in ghee. He told his partner Dharnidhar that he expected a party of his friends arriving at Benares and asked Dharnidhar to provide accommodation for those people. When Ram Chander and his party arrived in Benares, Dharnidhar accommodated them in the temple of Jagarnathji. There the party lived. One morning Sheo Saran, who was all the time away from Benares, arrived there and as he was proceeding to his residence he met by sheer accident, on his way two of the Defendants, Maheshar and Bishen Deo. These two persons informed the witness that Ram Chander was going to execute a will on that very day and asked Sheo Saran to be present. They also stated that the object of the will was "to avoid future quarrel." Sheo Saran took his partner Dharnidhar with him and went to the place where Ram Chander and the party were staying. The scribe of the deed Jwala Prasad was known to Dharnidhar and he was fetched. Jwala Prasad took from the lips of Ram Chander himself instructions as to the will and made a draft which he destroyed after the will had been executed by Ram Chander. Sheo Saran and Dharnidhar attested the will and the document was completed. The Plaintiffs were not in a position to tell us how the will was brought about. Mt. Sneoraji, the step-mother of the Plaintiffs, may not be willing to tell us the whole truth. We have therefore to see how far the Defendants on their own evidence have been able to establish a proper execution of the document by the deceased. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that there is no case of undue influence established but we are not so certain of that. We are inclined to believe that this was a case of undue influence and we shall proceed to state the circumstances, wihch lead us to draw that inference. 15. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that there is no case of undue influence established but we are not so certain of that. We are inclined to believe that this was a case of undue influence and we shall proceed to state the circumstances, wihch lead us to draw that inference. 15. The circumstances against the will being a straight forward affair are many. 16. To start with, we do not find, as we have already stated above, any mention as to why the daughters have been excluded. We expected a mention of the daughters even if there existed a custom excluding them from inheritance. Then the persons who took part in the execution and attestation of the will are not very independent people. Sheo Saran is a tenant of the Defendants as he admits himself and Dharnidhar is his partner. The scribe was known to Dharnidhar and evidently was chosen by him. It is said that 4 of the Defendants had accompanied Ram Chander to Benares but none of them knew Jwala Prasad from before. 17. The will was not registered although according to the Defendants own case there was ample time to register it at Benares. According to Babban one of the Defendants who entered into the witness box, the idea of having the deed registered did not at all strike anybody. Dharnidhar, a marginal witness, says the same thing while Sheo Saran states that Ram Chander mentioned that he would get the deed registered when he got well. Thereupon his agnates (the four among the Defendants who were present there and who had to get benefit under the will) suggested that the Sub-Registrar should be called then and there. Then Sheo Saran said that Ram Chander agreed to this proposition, but later on, Sheo Saran changed his reply and said that he did not remember what Ram Chander had said. This discrepancy in the statement of the witness is unexplained and the fact remains that those who brought about the execution and attestation of the will were afraid that the matter should not go before an independent officer like the Sub-Registrar who was sure to question Ram Chander about what he had done. We omitted to mention that the scribe Jwala Prasad is positive that he had suggested that the will should be registered. 18. We omitted to mention that the scribe Jwala Prasad is positive that he had suggested that the will should be registered. 18. Then, we fir d that the will is not in the possession of Mt. Sheoraji. One of the Defendants Babban has stated that it was Mt. Sheoraji who suggested the execution of the will and her suggestion was that she should have a life-interest and. that the remainder should go to the Defendants. Thus if Mt. Sheoraji was a willing agent in the matter of the execution of the will she as the first legatee should have got the document in her possession but the document is produced not by her but by the other Defendants. 19. The will itself bears two alleged signatures of Ram Chander. They do not at all tally. The signature on the margin, the usual place where an executant puts his signature in a document prepared in the Indian style, shows that the letters are hardly legible. At the bottom of the document there appears another signature which is by far more legible and some of these letters are well formed indeed. It is possible then, may it is probable, that some assistance, in the shape of holding the executant's hand was given to enable Ram Chander to form his signatures. Assuming that he did make these signatures the signatures indicate a weakness of the body, we have not got clear evidence as to the state of the mind of the deceased at the time of the execution of the will namely the 30th of January 1925. But if assistance was given in the form of the signatures that fact would go against the Defendants. 20. We have some positive indication that a document has been tampered with to suit the Defendants' case. It is a prescription said to have been given by Dr. Baghchi a witness in the case. It is the Defendants' case that Ram Chander was taken to Benares not merely to die but also for treatment. According to Babban the doctor was not called till more than 2 weeks after the arrival of Ram Chander and then the doctor that was called was a man who had almost just started practice at Benares. According to the evidence of Dr. Baghchi Benares has got many doctors. According to Babban the doctor was not called till more than 2 weeks after the arrival of Ram Chander and then the doctor that was called was a man who had almost just started practice at Benares. According to the evidence of Dr. Baghchi Benares has got many doctors. In the circumstances why a more clever and experienced person was not called is not explained. According to the dates given by Babban the doctor who was called a second time, came about four days before the execution of the will. The prescription which we have on the record was written on that occasion. This would mean that the prescription was drawn up on or about the 27th of January 1925. The date which the prescription bears, if closely examined with an eye glass, will clearly indicate that it originally bore the date 27th January 1925. The figure 2 of 27 has been changed into 3 and the figure 7 has been changed into 1. The doctor if he came on the 27th was not in a position to depose to the state of Ram Chander's mind as it existed on the 30th of January 1925. The doctor says that he did not examine the patient in order to find out his mental states. The medical evidence therefore is of little importance. 21. Now if we put all the circumstances together, we find that the daughters have been excluded without any definite statement to that effect and without any reason whatever being assigned for the purpose. Then we find that the persons (Defendants Nos. 1 to 7) have been benefited while Ram Chander had no special reason to benefit these people. There is not an iota of evidence to show that Ram Chander was specially attached to these persons. It is true that Mt. Sheoraji states that one of the defendants accompanied her to Benares, but the gift is not to that man alone but to his entire family. 22. Then we find that Ram Chander was physically very weak and we have no clear evidence that he was mentally strong. We are not satisfied then that it was explained to him that by this act he was benefiting his distant relations and was depriving his own daughters' and daughters' sons of his property. There is nothing to show that the daughters or daughters' sons were deprived deliberately of their inheritance. We are not satisfied then that it was explained to him that by this act he was benefiting his distant relations and was depriving his own daughters' and daughters' sons of his property. There is nothing to show that the daughters or daughters' sons were deprived deliberately of their inheritance. All this result can be due to one thing and one thing alone, namely the influence that was exercised by four of the defendants who according to their own story accompanied the old man to Benares. We are not in a position to say on the evidence that the whole will is a forgery but we are of opinion that there does exist a case of undue influence on the part of the defendants who have failed to explain the entire transaction which is in their favour. 23. In the result we agree with the court below that the will should be declared to be null and void and of no effect as against the Plaintiffs. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs and affirm the decree of the court below.