JUDGMENT : Narasiham, J. - This is an appeal by the Petitioners-Plaintiffs against the decision of the District Judge of Berhampur rejecting their petition for grant of probate in respect of a will said to have been executed by Rai Bahadur Mandhata Gorachand Patnaik of Berhampur on the 18th of January 1945. 2. Rai Bahadur M.G. Patnaik was a pleader of Berhampur Bar. He was also one of the prominent politicians of Orissa having been a member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly for several years and also having served as an interim Minister for some months in 1937. He died at his residence in Berhampur town on the 27th January, 1945 without any issue. His wife had per-deceased him some time in 1933. The objector (the Defendant) Mandhata Nityananda Patnaik is the own brother of the Rai Bahadur and his next heir if it be held that the Rai Bahadur died intestate. Petitioner Ashalata Dei is the own daughter of the objector and Petitioner Narasingha alias Arjun Patnaik is her husband. The Petitioner' case was that Ashalata was brought up by the Rai Bahadur as his own daughter, that he incurred all expenses in connection with her marriage with Narasingha (who is his wife's brother's son) and that the couple lived always in the house of the Rai Bahadur and were maintained by him. The entire expenditure in connection with the birth of several children to the couple was also borne by the Rai Bahadur who treated Narasingh as his own son. Narasingha is working as a stamp-vendor at Berhampur and in view of his slender income the Rai Bahadur used to meet most of his family expenditure. It was further alleged by the Petitioners that though the objector was the natural father of Ashalata he was not pulling on well with either of the Petitioners or with the Rat Bahadur and that he was Having separate in another house at Berhampur. The objector is also a pleader of Berhampur Bar. The will in question (Ext. 10) was said to have been executed by the Rai Bahadur at about 8 p.m. on 18.1.45 while he was lying bed-ridden in the first floor of his residence. He was suffering from diabetes for several years and his condition steadily deteriorated from the 1st week of January, 1945. The will in question (Ext. 10) was said to have been executed by the Rai Bahadur at about 8 p.m. on 18.1.45 while he was lying bed-ridden in the first floor of his residence. He was suffering from diabetes for several years and his condition steadily deteriorated from the 1st week of January, 1945. Ashalata became somewhat anxious about the execution of a will and made suggestions to that effect to one Keshabnarain Patnaik (P.W. 7) who is a Kaviraj practising at Berhampur under whose treatment the Rai Bahadur was during the relevant period. Keshabnarain stated that at about 7 p.m. on the 18th of January, 1945 he suggested to the Rai Bahadur the advisability of executing a will and that there. upon the Rai Bahadur sent for his clerk Ananta Patnaik (P.W. 8.) through Narasingha (P.W. 4) and that when Ananta was brought to his bed-room the Rai Bahadur dictated the contents of the will (Ext. 10) which was scribed by Ananta. While the Will was thus being scribed Narasingha, at the suggestion of the Rai Bahadur, went out-and brought an Advocate of Berhampur Bar named Digambar Rath (P.W. 9) to attest the will. Another pleader of Berhampur Bar named Dibakar Subudhi (P.W. 11) happened to come to the house of the Rai Bahadur at about that time on some professional work and he was also requested to attest the will. All these witnesses stated that after the will was duly scribed by Ananta it was read over to the Rai Bahadur who then signed it and handed it over to Digamber Rath and Dibakar Subudhi who both attested, the document. The scribe Ananta then put his signature and the will was then enclosed in an envelope,sealed with the person at seal of the Rai Bahadur who handed it over to Narasingha with instructions to give it to Ashalata who was in the adjoining room. The application for probate was filed before the District Judge on 16-2-45. 3. The objector however alleged that the will was a forgery brought into existence by his bitter enemies taking advantage of the fact that the Rai Bahadur used to keep several blank papers containing his signature with his clerk Ananta who being the arch enemy of the objector forged the will-in question on one such blank paper. 3. The objector however alleged that the will was a forgery brought into existence by his bitter enemies taking advantage of the fact that the Rai Bahadur used to keep several blank papers containing his signature with his clerk Ananta who being the arch enemy of the objector forged the will-in question on one such blank paper. On the 8th February, 1945 the objector had filed a petition before the District Magistrate of Ganjam (Ext. T) alleging that his brother (the Rai Bahadur) died intestate, that Narasingha Patnaik and his friends were conspiring to fabricate a will in conspiracy with his enemies and that urgent action may be taken. The District Magistrate directed the Circle Inspector of Police to look into the matter and presumably some sort of preliminary police investigation was made though nothing turned out eventually. As regards the two attesting witnesses who were both members of Berhampur Bar, the objector's case is that due to professional rivalry they had become his bitter enemies and that they have been induced to join the conspiracy to forge a will. 4. Hence, the sole question for consideration W this appeal is whether the will in question (Ext. 10) is a genuine and dully executed will of Rai Bahadur M.G. Patnaik or else whether it is a forgery. 5. Before discussing the evidence I may briefly refer to the legal principles to be followed in deciding cases of this type where the genuineness of a will is under challenge. Following the well-known English decision in Barry v. Bultin 12 Eng. Reports 1089 which has been reiterated in Tyrrell v. Painton 1894 LR 151. It is now settled that the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a will to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator. If the circumstances under which the will is prepared and executed raise the suspicion of the Court, it ought not to be pronounced for unless the party propounding it adduces evidence which removes such suspicion and satisfies the Court that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the will Doubtless a Court should not approach the question with the presumption that the will propounded is a forgery. Hence, if the party who applies for probate examines witnesses in whose presence the will was actually executed and who attested the document and those witnesses give clear and cogent testimony regarding the due execution of the will a Court would require very strong circumstances to repel the effect of such testimony. In the well-known Privy Council decision reported in Chotey Narain Singh v. Ratan Keor ILR Cal. 519. Their Lordships observed that the evidence of such attesting witnesses should not be rejected merely on the theory of improbability unless such improbability approaches very nearly to if it does not altogether constitute an impossibility. This view was reiterated in a later decision of the Privy Council reported in Jagrani Kunwar v. Durga Prasad where it was further pointed out that in the case of a will reasonable, natural and proper in its terms, it is not in accordance with sound rules of construction to apply those canons which demand rigors scrutiny of documents of which the opposite can be said. In Govinda Prasad v. Bala Kunwar the same principle was reiterated and it was observed that where attesting witnesses have given clear and cogent evidence and it is alleged that they all conspired to forge a will and to commit perjury a Court would not be entitled to attribute to such witnesses conspiracy and perjury 'unless the story told by them coupled with the surrounding circumstances is of itself so unnatural and improbable that only one conclusion, namely, conspiracy and perjury is reasonable possible. Their Lordships then discussed the Evidence. 6. Reviewing the entire evidence I am satisfied that the testator could not possibly have executed the will on the date, time and under the circumstance stated by the Plaintiffs. The will in question has been forged after the death of the Rai Bahadur taking advantage of the fact that a blank paper containing his signature was available in the hands of his clerk Ananta Patnaik. 7. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Rao, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed