Bapna, J.—This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge, Nagaur, refusing to grant letters of administration with the will annexed in respect of the estate of one Lakshmi Chand of Nagaur. 2. Hukmi Chand, who is the brother of the deceased Lakshmi Chand, applied to the District Judge for grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, and produced a will stated to have been executed by Lakshmi Chand on the 15th of January, 1948. The will was a registered one, having been registered oh the 23rd of January, 1948. Lakshmi Chand died on the nth of February, 1948, and the petition was presented on the 31st of August, 1948. The petition was opposed by Mst. Bhanwari widow of Lakshmi Chand. The learned District Judge found that the will had been duly executed by Lakshmi Chand, and that Lakshmi Chand was not so ill on the date as not to be in full possession of his senses. He, however, refused to grant the letters of administration with the will annexed on the ground that the testator purported to dispose of the property which was a coparcenary property of Lakshmi Chand and his brother Hukmi Chand. He has also observed that the deceased made no provision for the maintenance of his widow in the will, which practically amounted to defeating her legal right to maintenance, which he had no authority to do. He also held that among Digamber Jains, a person could not devise his property in favour of his brother when he had a wife living. The petitioner, Hukmi Chand, has come in appeal. 3. It may be stated at once that in proceedings relating to probate or to the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, it is not the business of the court to take into consideration the property which may be devised by the testator or whether he had a right to dispose of his property under the will. All that the court has to decide in such cases is that the will had been executed by the testator and he had the capacity to understand the I nature of the act, or that the act was not vitiated by fraud, or undue influence or defects of that nature. All that the court has to decide in such cases is that the will had been executed by the testator and he had the capacity to understand the I nature of the act, or that the act was not vitiated by fraud, or undue influence or defects of that nature. Reference may be made to Bai Parvatibai vs. Raghunath Lakshmaa (A.I.R. 1941 Bombay 60), and Bun Ditta Mal & others vs. Devi Datta Mal (A.I.R. 1931 Lahore 130). The learned counsel for the respondent accepted the proposition of law as stated above, and could not support the judgment of the lower Court 011 the basis it was given. He, however, contended that looking to the circumstances of this case and the disposition of the property made by the deceased leaving nothing for his widow, it should be held that the testator was not in a sound and disposing state of mind. He argued that it was most unnatural for a person to make no provision for a young wife when there was no quarrel or enmity between the husband and the wife. It was also stated that the testator had been suffering from tuberculosis for about five months, and he must have been in a very feeble state of mind, and could not realise the nature of his act. He referred to the evidence recorded in the case, and argued that the testator was so ill during the period when the will had been executed that he could not understand that he was disposing of all his property without leaving anything for his wife. It was also argued that under the will, Hukmi Chand took the entire benefit of the estate of Lakshmi Chand, and as he was the person who sent for the scribe and took a leading part in the execution and registration of the will, the burden of proof lay heavily upon him to show that the deceased fully understood the nature of the disposition. 4. We have gone through the entire evidence, and we agree with the lower Court that it has been fully proved that Lakshmi Chand had a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the will, and that the will was brought into existence under the instructions and at the instance of Lakshmi Chand himself. 4. We have gone through the entire evidence, and we agree with the lower Court that it has been fully proved that Lakshmi Chand had a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the will, and that the will was brought into existence under the instructions and at the instance of Lakshmi Chand himself. A.W. 3, Arjun Raj, scribe, who is a licensed petition-writer, stated that he wrote out the will under the instructions of Lakshmi Chand, and that after he had written it, he read it over to Lakshmi-Chand, and he accepted it and affixed his signature in his presence. Santokh Chand, A. W. 2, is an attesting witness, who also states that he attested the will at the instance of Lakshmi Chand. He, however, does not state that the will was read over to him or to the testator in his presence. But A. W. 4, Mr. Jaswant Narain, who was the Sub-Registrar at Nagaur, clearly states that when he went to Lakshmi Chand at his residence, he found Lakshmi Chand in full possession of his senses. He got the document read over by his clerk, and Lakshmi Chand admitted having executed the will, and the will was registered by the officer. It appears from the endorsement of this officer that not only the document was read over to Lakshmi Chand but Lakshmi Chand admitted what he purported to have done by stating that by executing the document he had bequeathed all his property to his elder brother Hukmi Chand. The evidence in rebuttal has failed to establish that Lakshmi Chand was not in his proper senses or had not a sound and disposing state of mind. Satya Narain, O.W. 1, only purports to say that the will was written in the room of Hukmi Chand and not in the room of Lakshmi Chand. He states generally that Lakshmi Chand was ill during those days. O.W. 2, Ram Nath, gives as his opinion that during those days Lakshmi Chand was not in such a state of mind as to understand the consequences of a will. He, however, admits that when he used to talk to him, Lakshmi Chand sometimes gave good replies and at other times other replies. O.W. 2, Ram Nath, gives as his opinion that during those days Lakshmi Chand was not in such a state of mind as to understand the consequences of a will. He, however, admits that when he used to talk to him, Lakshmi Chand sometimes gave good replies and at other times other replies. O.W. 4, Dhan-sukh Das, is the maternal-uncle of both Lakshmi Chand and Hukmi Chand, and his statement in his examination-in-chief that Lakshmi Chand was not in a proper state of mind at the time the will was executed, and that the witness refused to attest the will when asked to do so by Hukmi Chand, would have been of some importance, if his statement remained unshaken in cross-examination. But, as it happens, Dhansukh Das admitted having been on inimical terms with Kesari Mal, the father of Hukmi Chand, even so much so that he was not invited at the time of two marriages in the family of Kesari Mal. Again, he fixes the period of his refusal to attest the will as 7 to 12 days before the death of Lakshmi Chand. The witness therefore purports to say that his refusal took place near about 30th of January. But the will was registered on the 23rd of January, and there could be no occasion for asking him to attest thereafter. The evidence of Dhansukh Das, therefore, cannot be relied upon. O.W. 5, Anoop Chand, states that he was asked by Hukmi Chand to attest the will, but when he spoke to Lakshmi Chand about it, the latter replied that the witness might do what he liked. The witness goes on to state that at the time the will was executed, Lakshmi Chand was very feeble, and could not think or dispose properly. But the fact that this witness went and asked Lakshmi Chand whether he should attest the will would seem to indicate that so far as this witness was concerned, he thought Lakshmi Chand to have the mental capacity to understand and give him the proper reply. The reply attributed to Lakshmi Chand is not that he did not know about the will or had not executed it. The last witness for the objector, Ratan Lal, O.W. 6, is the father of the respondent, and says that during those days Lakshmi Chand was not keeping on well. The reply attributed to Lakshmi Chand is not that he did not know about the will or had not executed it. The last witness for the objector, Ratan Lal, O.W. 6, is the father of the respondent, and says that during those days Lakshmi Chand was not keeping on well. This is not the same thing as the statement that he was not in a proper, sound and disposing state of mind. Various authorities were cited at the bar, but they are distinguishable on facts. 5. In Srimati Sarat Kumari Bibi vs. Rai Sakhi Chand Bahadur and others (A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 45), a certain provision in the will which was in favour of the scribe was held inoperative, as on the evidence it was held that it had been inserted after the draft had been approved by the testator, and the final document had not been read over to him. In Mst. Biro vs. Atma Ram and others (A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 101, the question was whether the will had been executed by the testator. The evidence of the scribe and attesting witnesses was full of contradictions and the document itself was propounded after a lapse of 22 years, and had not been produced on various previous occasions, when it was natural to expect that it would be produced. 6. The argument that no provision had been made for the wife and on that account it should be held that it was not the testators wishes which had been incorporated in the will, is also not correct. It is mentioned in the will that certain jewellery had been taken away by the wife and was not being returned under the influence of the lady, and it may have been thought proper by the testator to bequeath his estate to the brother rather than to the wife Be that as it may, the evidence led by the petitioner is quite sufficient to prove that Lakshmi Chand was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the will, and the respondent has failed to substantiate her objections. 7. The appeal is, therefore, accep-ted, the order of the lower court is set aside, and letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed in respect of the estate of Lakshmi Chand mentioned in the petition be granted to Hukmi Chand. 7. The appeal is, therefore, accep-ted, the order of the lower court is set aside, and letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed in respect of the estate of Lakshmi Chand mentioned in the petition be granted to Hukmi Chand. In view of the fact that the respondent is the wife of the deceased testator, we make no order as to costs.