JUDGMENT B.D. Singh, J. This appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, by the sole appellant Bhola Singh (one of the defendants) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.64 passed in Title Suit no. 2/1 of 1962 by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. Kedarnath Singh, respondent no. 1, one of the sons of Dhanesh Singh, on 6.12.60 filed probate case no. 83 of 1960 in the Court of District Judge for the grant of probate or in the alternative letters of administration with respect to a will executed by Bachu Singh on 21.6.70 registered on 22.6.50 at the Buxar Sub-registration office in the district of Shahabad. Since the original will was misplaced the certified copy (Ext. 1) was filed along with the application by Kedarnath Singh. By the said will Bachu Singh bequeathed his entire properties after his death to his wife Adhirajo Kuer for her life with powers to encumber the estate for legal necessity and after her death the remaining property was bequeathed absolutely to his nephew Kedarnath Singh. Bachu Singh died on 18.5.53 when he was aged about 80 years. Adhirajo Kuer also died subsequently on 3.11.60. 3. In order to appreciate the nature of the dispute it is necessary to set out the pedigree of the contesting parties as follows :- Bharosa Singh Seo Prasan Singh Bachu Dhanesh Singh Bhola Basudeo Narain Singh Singh Singh (examined (alleged Murari Tripurari Kedarnath (Deft. no. 3 in High Court as testator) Mohan Singh Singh (Pf. applt.) a court Witness) Adhirajo Singh respdt.) Kuer Jagdhari Mohan Rajeshwari Kamla Singh Singh Singh (Defdt. (Defdt. respdt.) respdt.) After citation were issued appellant Bhola Singh appeared and filed a petition objecting to the grant of probate to Kedarnath Singh. It was alleged by him that Bachu Singh did not execute any will. The alleged will was forged and fabricated. According to him, Bachu Singh had no sound disposing mind in the year 1950. In the alternative in his rejoinder application he stated that if any will was executed by Bachu Singh it was due to undue influence exercised by Adhirajo Kuer and Kedarnath Singh. In the said proceeding Balram Singh, respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1), brother of Adhirajo Kuer and Ramadhar Singh respondent no. 3. (defendant no. In the alternative in his rejoinder application he stated that if any will was executed by Bachu Singh it was due to undue influence exercised by Adhirajo Kuer and Kedarnath Singh. In the said proceeding Balram Singh, respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1), brother of Adhirajo Kuer and Ramadhar Singh respondent no. 3. (defendant no. 2) who is brother's son of Adhirajo Kuer, also appeared and raised objection to the grant of probate to Kedarnath Singh alleging that the said will was forged and fabricated. In the alternative they alleged that its execution was effected by practising fraud on Bachu Singh who was a simpleton. They also alleged that Adhirajo Kuer had absolute right to the properties of Bachu Singh after his death and she had already executed a registered will dated 15.7.1959 in favour of Balram Singh and Ramadhar Singh. Since the probate proceeding was contested by those persons, it was converted into a title suit and ultimately it was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge and it was registered as Title Suit No. 2/1 of 1962, as mentioned earlier. On the respective cases of the contesting parties, the following five issues were framed by the court below :- 1. Is the application maintainable? 2. Is the will alleged to have been executed by Bachu Singh genuine and duly executed in accordance with law? 3. Did the testator have the disposing and testamentary capacity? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to probate? 5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 4. The learned Additional District Judge first considered issue nos. 2 and 3 together, since only those were the important issues, and the parties are at variance on these two issues alone even before this Court. In the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff five witnesses including the plaintiff himself were examined. Bindeshwar Singh who was one of the attesting witnesses of the will was examined as P.W.1. Bishun Prasad Pandey who was also one of the attesting witnesses, was examined as P.W.2. Kedarnath Singh, the plaintiff, was examined as P.W.3. Ramswaroop Singh, resident of village Barhampur, to which the plaintiff also belongs, was examined as P.W.4. Lastly, Ramnath Pandey of the same village was examined as P.W.5. The documentary evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff is the certified copy of the disputed will which was marked as Ext. 1 as mentioned earlier. Ramswaroop Singh, resident of village Barhampur, to which the plaintiff also belongs, was examined as P.W.4. Lastly, Ramnath Pandey of the same village was examined as P.W.5. The documentary evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff is the certified copy of the disputed will which was marked as Ext. 1 as mentioned earlier. On behalf of both sets of defendants only four witnesses were examined. Out of them on behalf of the appellant two witnesses were examined. Ramchandra Rai, resident of the same village was examined as D.W.1 for Bhola Singh, defendant no. 3. The other witness is Bhola Singh himself who was examined as D.W.2. On behalf of appellant Bhola Singh a summons showing that Basudeo Narain Singh of Brahampur had brought a suit against Bhola Singh, was filed and the same was marked as Ext. A-2. On behalf of defendants 1 and 2 the remaining two witnesses were examined. They are Ramadhar Singh, defendant no. 2 himself who was examined as D.W.1 and the other witness is Ramjit Singh who was examined as D.W.2. 5. After perusing those evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge answered issue no. 2 in affirmative holding that the will was duly executed by Bachu Singh and was genuine. He answered issue no. 3 also in affirmative holding that Bachu Singh had disposing mind when he executed the will. It is unnecessary to give the finding with regard to other issues. Suffice it to mention that he held under issue no. 1 that the application of Kedarnath Singh was maintainable. As regards issue no. 4, he held that since no executor was appointed in the will, Kedarnath Singh was not entitled to a probate, but the learned Judge granted him letters of administration according to his alternative prayer under issue no. 5. Thus, the suit was decreed in favour of Kedarnath Singh. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr. Satyanand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the judgment and decree of the court below mainly with regard to the findings on issue nos. 2 and 3. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge erred in appreciating the evidence on the record, and in not taking into consideration the circumstances and the background vis-a-vis the will purported to have been executed by Bachu Singh. Learned counsel contended that the will was not genuine. 2 and 3. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge erred in appreciating the evidence on the record, and in not taking into consideration the circumstances and the background vis-a-vis the will purported to have been executed by Bachu Singh. Learned counsel contended that the will was not genuine. He urged that his contention was based on various suspicious circumstances, namely, (1) it was unnatural that Bachu Singh would, without any rhyme and reason, debar Bhola Singh, his own brother, and his other nephews, namely, Tripurari and the two sons of his nephew Murari from their respective shares in the property, by alienating the property through the will, exclusively in favour of Kedarnath Singh after the life time of Adhirajo Kuer, in the absence of any material to show that Bachu Singh had affection only for Kedarnath Singh and had no regard for his brother or other nephews, (2) Bachu Singh was aged 80 years and was seriously ill when he is alleged to have executed the will and had no disposing mind, (3) absence of the original will and its draft, (4) non-examination of the person who drafted the will, the scribe who prepared it the Registering Officer, who registered it, and the identifying witness who identified Bachu Singh before the Registrar, (5) absence of evidence to establish that Bachu Singh acknowledged before the Registrar regarding the contents of the will which was registered, (6) prior or subsequent to the execution of the will Bachu Singh did not give out to anyone, not even to his wife Adhirajo Kuer that he had so executed the will and (7) delay of 10 years in filing probate proceeding by Kedarnath Singh, after the execution of the will. 7. He submitted that someone at the instance of Kedarnath Singh impersonated Bachu Singh and thus he got a false will executed. In the alternative he urged that if his submission is not accepted, there is enough evidence on the record to establish that Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will, was exercising undue influence on Bachu Singh throughout and was instrumental in getting the said will executed in order to cut out the shares of other nearest heirs of Bachu Singh. He drew our attention to Ext. 1, the certified copy of the will the scribe mentioned wherein is one Ganpat Sahay. He drew our attention to Ext. 1, the certified copy of the will the scribe mentioned wherein is one Ganpat Sahay. So far the examination of Ganpat Sahay is concerned, I find that there is evidence of P.W.3 that he died subsequent to the date of the execution of the will and, therefore, he could not have been examined by the plaintiff. He submitted that it was Ganpat Sahay who had certified that he read over the contents to the executant, who admitted them to be correct. He urged that according to the case of the respondents, Ganpat Sahay is still alive as it was so suggested on behalf of the appellant to P.W.3. But in my opinion, mere suggestion cannot take place of evidence. P.W.3 has emphatically denied that suggestion and stated in evidence that Ganpat who was a scribe, was dead. In my view, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.3 on the point of death of the scribe. Mr. Kumar then laid stress upon non-examination of Basudeo Narain Singh, who had identified Bachu Singh before Anwaruddin Khan, the registering officer at the time of the registration. The endorsement in Ext. 1 reads "Execution is admitted by the above Bachu Singh who is identified by Basudeo Singh son of Sheo Prasad Singh of the same place, caste and profession". He submitted that the examination of Basudeo Narain Singh was imperative, particularly when the case of the appellant was and is that Bachu Singh had not signed on the will and someone impersonated Bachu Singh before the registering officer at the time of registration. According to him, the plaintiff has not brought on the record any other document in order to establish that the signature which Bachu Singh is alleged to have scribed on the disputed will was really his signature. Since the original will is not forthcoming, his alleged signature even on the disputed win cannot be tested as to whether it was genuine or not, on the basis of the certified copy of the will. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Kaiash Roy, appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent, contended that the will is genuine and is duly executed by Bachu Singh who admitted the execution before the Registrar at the time of registration. The execution and its registration were valid and legal. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Kaiash Roy, appearing on behalf of plaintiff-respondent, contended that the will is genuine and is duly executed by Bachu Singh who admitted the execution before the Registrar at the time of registration. The execution and its registration were valid and legal. He urged that the plaintiff has explained the circumstances in which the original was lost. He referred to the evidence of P.W.3 who stated in chief that the original will was in his custody but it was lost. He began to search the original will in 1956, but it was not found. Then he obtained a copy of it. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant referred to his evidence in cross Examination where he stated that the will was in his custody till 1952. He could not tell who took away the original will from his custody. He further stated that he could not tell when it was lost from his custody. He did not lodge information in the police station regarding the loss of the will. In 1953 when he searched the will after the death of Bachu Singh he learnt that the will was lost. Before 1953 he did not know that the will was lost. In 1953 he did not make any enquiry from anybody regarding the will. 9. Mr. Kumar submitted that this statement of P.W.3 in cross-examination contradicts his statement in chief wherein he stated that he began to search for the original will in 1956 but he could not find it. He urged that he was obviously making a false statement regarding the loss of the original will. In my opinion, the two statements referred to regarding the year in which P.W.3 began searching for the original will do not materially contradict each other. It is of common knowledge that when an important document is misplaced, one makes a search for it on several occasions. When P.W.3 could not get it in 1953 he searched for the same again in 1956 when he finally came to the conclusion that it was lost and then he applied for the certified copy. There is nothing unnatural about it. I find no reason to disbelieve him on this point regarding the loss of the original will. When P.W.3 could not get it in 1953 he searched for the same again in 1956 when he finally came to the conclusion that it was lost and then he applied for the certified copy. There is nothing unnatural about it. I find no reason to disbelieve him on this point regarding the loss of the original will. If really the original will was not lost, how the plaintiff, the propounder of the will, would be benefited by withholding the original will. Mr. Kumar contended that he was withholding the original will only because if the original was produced, the forged signature of Bachu Singh could have been easily detected. In my opinion, this contention of Mr. Kumar cannot be accepted in view of the fact that according to his own case, there was no other document of Bachu Singh wherein he had put his signature. Hence there was no danger of being detected even if the original will was produced. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, with reference to the other comments made on behalf of the appellant, contended that there was no suspicious circumstance which surrounded the will, He refuted to Ext. 1, the relevant portion of which reads as :- "I the executant, execute this will to the effect that after my death Dulhin Adhirajo Kueri claimant no. 1 wife of, me the executant, will become the owner of the movable and immovable and nami and benami property of me the executant, for which will be left behind by the executant, for her life time and that she will be, in case of legal necessity, competent to transfer it, and to make it liable to encumbrance and that after the death of Dulhin Adhirajo Kueri claimant no. 1, the wife of me the executant, Babu Kedar Nath Singh claimant no. 2 who is own nephew of me the executant, and who always attends and serves me the executant and my wife, will become the sole owner of the movable and immovable and nami and benami property of me the executant, which will be left behind, and that none else, except him will become the owner......" He submitted that this clearly indicates that since the plaintiff used to serve Bachu Singh as well as his wife and used to stand by them, obviously he was in good book of the executant, namely, Bachu Singh. Therefore, he did not give any benefit in the will to his brother or nephew or their sons. According to him, the portion of the will referred to above also explains why the plaintiff waited for about 10 years for filing any application for initiation of probate proceeding. The properties mentioned in the will were to pass on at the first instance to Adhirajo Kuer for her life. It was only after her death that Kedarnath Singh came into picture. Therefore, he had to wait till the death of Adhirajo Kuer. 10. In my judgment, the above submissions of Mr. Roy are well founded. In 1950 when the will was executed, a Hindu female's right to hold property was governed by the Hindu women's Right to property Act, 1937. According to that Act a Hindu female used to acquire only a limited interest. Generally only life estate used to be bequeathed to Hindu females in this part of the country. Therefore, it sums in the will she was given interest in the property till her life only. Further, she was empowered to alienate the property for legal necessity. It was only after her death that Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will, acquired absolute right in the remaining property bequeathed under the will. Besides, as mentioned in the will itself, Kedarnath Singh always used to serve Bachu Singh and his wife and, therefore, it was natural that Bachu Singh bequeathed his property after the life of Adhirajo Kuer, to Kedarnath Singh alone. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that Bachu Singh's brother Bhola Singh and his other nephews Murari Mohan Singh or Tripurari Singh or his other heirs were equally rendering service to Bachu Singh. It is also not on the record to indicate that Bhola Singh and others were in any way dependent upon Bacha Singh who used to maintain them during his life. Hence, I do not find any intrinsic infirmity or unnaturalness in the will by which no benefit has been given to the other heirs namely, Bhola Singh and others. As Kedarnath Singh is to get the property in the will after the death of Adhirajo Kuer, who died on 3.11.60, in my opinion, the delay in filing application not the initiation of probate proceeding is also sufficiently explained. In the circumstances, the step taken by Kedarnath Singh is also natural. 11. As Kedarnath Singh is to get the property in the will after the death of Adhirajo Kuer, who died on 3.11.60, in my opinion, the delay in filing application not the initiation of probate proceeding is also sufficiently explained. In the circumstances, the step taken by Kedarnath Singh is also natural. 11. It may be recalled that according to the learned counsel for the appellant the absence of the draft of the original will was also one of the suspicious circumstance in the instant case. He drew out attention to the evidence of P.W.1, the relevant portion of which on this point is as follows :- “....., There was a draft custody of Ganpat Lal which was scribed. I cannot tell whether the draft prepared by some pleader or by Ganpat Lal. First of all Ganpat Lal scribed from the draft. After the document was scribed from the draft it was decided that we should go then and that it would be registered next day......” From this, no doubt, it appears that draft of the will was also prepared. It was desirable that the said draft also ought to have been filed by Kedarnath Singh in this case, but he has not filed it, nor has he explained in his evidence the absence thereof. Mr. Kumar, however, contended that at least the person who had drafted the will ought to have been examined. But, in my opinion, this contention of learned counsel is not acceptable in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 P.W.1 deposed that the will was scribed at the house of Chandra Shekhar Singh, pleader who used to practise at Buxar. He further stated that he died. He also stated that he did not remember whether Chandra Shekhar Singh was in his house or not at the time of scribing of the document. There was a chouki. The scribe sat on it and scribed the will. At the time when the will was scribed, Bachu Singh, Ganpat Lal, Pleader's clerk, Basudeo Narain Singh, the deponent, namely, P.W.1, and one or two more persons whose names he did not know, were there P.W.1 further stated in his evidence, the portion of which I have quoted earlier, that he could not tell whether the draft was prepared by some pleader or by Ganpat Lal. The evidence of P.W.3 is, as mentioned earlier, that Ganpat Lal, the scribe, was dead and, therefore, he could not be examined as a witness. In my opinion, in that view of the matter it was not possible for the plaintiff to have examined the person who had drafted the will. However, in my judgment these infirmities alone would not be enough to doubt the genuineness of the will. To come to the conclusion whether it is genuine or not, it will be necessary to scrutinise the evidence on record with regard to its due execution by Bachu Singh, its attestation and registration by the registering officer, which I will discuss later after I have dealt with the other points raised on behalf of the appellant. 12. Regarding the comment made by Mr. Kumar that after the execution of the will Bachu Singh did not mention about it even to Adhirajo Kuer who was to get the property bequeathed at the first instance. Mr. Roy contended that it was not open to the appellant to make such a comment. He referred to the objection petition filed on behalf of Bhola Singh, appellant, in the probate proceeding, where in Paragraph 7 it is stated that Adhirajo Kuer was the third wife of Bachu Singh, who exercised her undue influence over Bachu Singh, who was under her complete domination, and as such Bachu Singh could not exercise his free will. It is further stated in Paragraph 15 that the will, if any, that might have been brought into existence, was due to undue influence of Adhirajo Kuer, and Kedarnath Singh, the petitioner in the probate proceeding, particularly when Bachu Singh could not exercise his natural mental capacity to understand things. In my opinion, that statement made in the objection petition cannot debar the appellant from making the above comment, as clearly the appellant had stated that fact as an alternative plea, which he was entitled under law to do. The said comment of the appellant is further based upon the fact that Adhirajo Kuer executed a registered will dated 15.7.1959 regarding the properties bequeathed under Ext. 1 in favour of Balram Singh and Ramadhar Singh. If really she knew about the execution of the will (Ext. 1) by which she got only life interest she could not have registered the will dated 15.7.59. 1 in favour of Balram Singh and Ramadhar Singh. If really she knew about the execution of the will (Ext. 1) by which she got only life interest she could not have registered the will dated 15.7.59. In my opinion, the basis of such comment also is not a sound one. It may be that even after she knew about the execution of the will (Ext. 1), she wanted to exercise her absolute right in order to please Balram Singh and Ramadhar Singh, her own relations. We were told that it has already been held by a competent court by judgment dated 19-6-69 that she was not entitled to execute the will dated 15-7-59. Therefore, that will which she executed lost its force. A reference to Section 14 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly indicates that a Hindu female cannot hold property as full owner if she got the property as a life interest in a will. Regarding the comment on non-examination of Basudeo Narain Singh, who had identified Bachu Singh at the time of registration, Mr. Roy submitted that although he was uncle of P.W.3 he was in collusion with Bhola Singh, the appellant, to whom he was equally related. In this connection he referred to the evidence of P.W.3, who stated in his evidence that Basudeo Narain Singh was in collusion with Bhola Singh. Learned counsel submitted that even the plaintiff had got a summons issued to Basudeo Narain Singh for examining him as a witness but he did not come to depose. He also submitted that Basudeo Narain Singh had become inimical to Kedarnath Singh because, Bachu Singh had settled a few bighas of land with Basudeo Narain Singh by a registered document, which was also registered on the same date on which the will was executed and registered. In the application for the probate proceeding Kedarnath Singh had included, among other properties, also the land which was settled to Basudeo Narain Singh. Due to that reason Basudeo Narain Singh was annoyed with Kedarnath Singh, In the course of hearing of his appeal, in the interest of justice, by order dated 20-5-69 we directed to summon Basudeo Narain Singh as a court witness. Accordingly, he was examined and cross-examined on the 13th and 14th August, 1969, His evidence shall be discussed at the relevant place. 13. Mr. Accordingly, he was examined and cross-examined on the 13th and 14th August, 1969, His evidence shall be discussed at the relevant place. 13. Mr. Kumar advocated that Bacha Singh was aged about 80 years and was seriously ill. He was not in a disposing state of mind. He could not have gone to the registering office for the registration. According to him, someone else impersonated Bachu Singh and thus Kedarnath Singh brought a forged will into existence. Mr. Roy, on the other hand, contended that there is no scope for advocating such suspicious circumstances in the instant case since it is a registered will. In order to substantiate his contention he relied on a decision in the case of (1) Gangamoyi Debi V. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhary (I.L.R. 33 Calcutta 537). That case went up in appeal before Privy Council from a decree of the High Court of Calcutta which had reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshaye. The main question involved in the appeal was whether Brojo Nath Chowdhary, the husband of the plaintiff appellant, died intestate as alleged by her or whether he left a registered will as contended by the respondents. On behalf of the appellant in that case it was contended that there was not sufficient evidence of the due execution and registration of the will, set up by the respondents. It was contended that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that Brojo Nath Chowdhary had neither admitted executing it nor obtained registration of it. The evidence showed that he was too ill to do either. It was most improbable that he would have attended at the Registrar's office in person within 24 hours of his death. It was also very improbable that Brojo Nath Chowdhary, though be left a widow and five daughters, should have given his property to his brother and the charge on it in favour of the appellant was not paid under the terms of the will but varied according to her needs and the extent of the income which was consistent with the usual practice in joint families. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant was not a member of the joint family and had not been in joint possession of any of the property in suit since her husband's death. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent it was contended that the appellant was not a member of the joint family and had not been in joint possession of any of the property in suit since her husband's death. As a widow residing in the family dwelling she could not have been entitled to a separate sum for maintenance if she had been a member of the joint family, nor would her married daughter. As to the suggestion that Brojo Nath Chowdhary could not have gone to the Registrar's office and that he was impersonated there, had that been the case it would have been well known to Girish Chunder Lahiri in whose house Mr. Chowdhary was lying ill that he could not have gone there and that he died the next day. It was further contended that there was no motive for fraud of such magnitude. The Judicial committee after considering the evidence on the record observed at pages 544-45:- “... The registration is a solemn act, to be performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as Registrar, whose duty it is to attend the parties during the registration and see that the proper persons are present, are competent to act, and are identified to his satisfaction and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature will be presumed, to be done duly and in order. Of course it may be shown that a deliberate fraud upon him has been successfully committed but this can only be by very much stronger evidence than is forthcoming here. And this must be specially borne in mind, that no witness has been found, who will say that the signature of Brojo Nath Chowdhary in the will and in the Registrar's Bock is not in his handwriting. The contrary is expressly stated by Lakhi Nath Mazumdar, who adds that his signatures when in good health were better than these...” Thus, the will propounded in that case was uphold as being genuine on the evidence as to due execution and registration and the decree of the High Court which had reversed that of the Subordinate judge was affirmed. Mr. Mr. Kumar, on the other hand, in order to find support to his contention relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Rarni Purnima Debi and another V. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another (A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 507). In that case also a registered will came up for consideration. The main appellant before the Supreme Court was Rani Purnima Debi, widow of Kumar Chandra Narayan Deb, who died in June, 1946. The second appellant was the testator's married daughter: The will was executed on 29.12.1943 in favour of Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, one of the respondents. He filed an application before the District Delegate, Gauhati in 1946 for the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed. The case of the said respondent was that the testator had executed the said will in favour of the respondent by which the testator gave his entire property to the respondent subject to the respondent's maintaining the testator's widow and sister. Objections were filed on behalf of the appellants to the grant of letters of administration on the basis of the will propounded by the respondent and three main grounds were urged in that connection, namely, (i) that the will was not duly and legally executed and attested, (ii) that the testator had no sound disposing mind at the time he executed the will, and (iii) that the will was the outcome of undue influence and coercion exercised by the respondent. While the application of the respondent was pending, another application for probate of another will said to have been executed by the testator a few months before his death was made by Kumar Dwijendra Narayan Deb. The appellants objected to that will also on the same grounds and further added that that will was also forged. Since the Supreme Court was not concerned with the will propounded by Kumar Dwijendra Narayan Deb, it is not necessary to set out the facts regarding the second will. The trial court held that the will in favour of Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb was duly executed and attested and was made by the testator at the time when be had sound disposing state of mind, and that it was not made under any undue influence and coercion. The trial court held that the will in favour of Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb was duly executed and attested and was made by the testator at the time when be had sound disposing state of mind, and that it was not made under any undue influence and coercion. Consequently the application of the respondent was allowed and letter of administration with the copy of the will annexed were ordered to be issued to him. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants filed appeal before the High Court which upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The High Court was conscious of the fact that there were certain suspicious circumstances attending to the execution of the will in favour of the respondent, but it held that as the will propounded by the respondent was later registered in January, 1944, the suspicion attending the execution of the will was dispelled by the fact of registration. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of, the High Court, the appellants filed appeal before the Supreme Court by special leave. Their Lordships after considering the evidence observed at page 574 in Paragraph 23 : "There is no doubt that if a will has been registered that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a will of did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the will was registered would not be of much value. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered wills have not been acted upon; (see for example Vellaswamy Serval V. Sivaraman Servai, ILR 8 Rang 179; (AIR 1930 PC 24), Surendra Nath V. Jhnandra Nath, AIR 1932 Calcutta 574 ana Girja Datt Singh V. Gangotri Datt Singh, (S) AIR 1955 S.C. 346 . Therefore the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a will though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the will after knowing that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting." Learned counsel for the appellant placed great reliance on the above observations of their Lordships. In my judgment, their Lordships have not laid down any rigid guideline. It is true that the propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. Whether the propounder has been able to dispel the doubt depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the parties. Whether the propounder has been able to dispel the doubt depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the parties. It is, no doubt, also true that on the proof of the signature of the deceased or his acknowledgement that he has signed the will, he will be presumed to have known the provisions of the instrument he has signed, but the said presumption is liable to be rebutted by the proof of suspicious circumstances. What circumstances would be regarded as suspicious cannot be precisely laid down or exhaustively enumerated. It depends upon the facts and the circumstances of a particular case and the evidence led by the parties. Mr. Kumar endeavoured to show that the facts and circumstances involved in (2) A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 567 (supra) were identical to those of the instant case. In order to substantiate his contention he referred to Paragraph 7 of the judgment wherein it is stated that the testator had left behind him his widow and his married daughter who were appellants before the Supreme Court, and an unmarried sister who was dependent upon him. Besides them, the testator had a number of other relations who were much nearer to him than the respondent (the propounder of the will). Their Lordships further observed that even if they left out of account the married daughter and the other near relations, the widow and the sister were certainly expected to be properly provided for by the testator. It was not disputed that the relations between the testator and his wife and sister were good. In those circumstances their Lordships expected something better than what was provided in the will for those two. That will which their Lordships were considering provided that the wife and the sister would be suitably maintained by the respondent during their life time. No amount was specified which was to be given to those two ladies as maintenance and no charge was created on the properties left by the testator which was considerable, In effect, the two ladies were left to the tender mercy of the respondent in the matter of their maintenance. Further, the result of the will was that the daughter was completely disinherited. Further, the result of the will was that the daughter was completely disinherited. The testator had a number of children but they died many years before and only one daughter was alive at the time of his death. She was married and on behalf of the propounder it was stated that the relations between the testator and her husband were not very happy. The evidence, however, did not show that the relations between the testator and his son-in-law were particularly strained at the time of the execution of the will. In the circumstances their Lordships expected the testator to make some provisions for the daughter, particularly when it was said that she was not well off. In that view of the matter their Lordships held that there was no doubt that the will was most unnatural and that was one of the suspicious circumstances which required satisfactory Explanation before the propounder could get the letters of administration. In my view, these facts are clearly distinguishable from those of the instant case where the testators widow Adhirajo Kuer had become owner of both movable and immovable properties "nami" and "benami" for her life and she was also given power to alienate the properties bequeathed to her in case of legal necessity. He had power to encumber the properties also. Thus, she could have enjoyed the benefit of the properties bequeathed to her without any hindrance, Therefore, what she would get from the properties bequeathed to her was not in any way dependent upon the sweet will of Kedarnath Singh, the propounded of the will. According to the terms of the will it was only after her life time, as mentioned earlier, that Kedarnath Singh was to get the properties left behind by her. Therefore, what properties Kedarnath Singh would have got was dependent upon various factors. It was not known how long Adhirajo Kuer would have survived. During her life time all the properties bequeathed to her might have been spent upon by her in meeting her own requirements and she could have sold away major portion of it on the ground of legal necessity. Therefore, what Kedarnath Singh would have got was dependent upon the widow of the testator Kedarnath Singh himself might have predeceased her. During her life time all the properties bequeathed to her might have been spent upon by her in meeting her own requirements and she could have sold away major portion of it on the ground of legal necessity. Therefore, what Kedarnath Singh would have got was dependent upon the widow of the testator Kedarnath Singh himself might have predeceased her. Besides, in the instant case there is no evidence that the other heirs of Bachu Singh, the testator, were in any way dependent upon him. That apart, in the will itself it is mentioned that Kedarnath Singh always attended and served the testator and his wife, Therefore, in my opinion, it is explained why Kedarnath Singh was chosen as the sole beneficiary of the bequeathed property after the death of Adhirajo Kuer. In that circumstance, the other heirs of the testator were cut off. In that view of the matter in the instant case, that cannot be considered as one of the suspicious circumstances indicating that it was unnatural will. 14. In the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above, another suspicious circumstance was that the signature of the testator did not appear to be his usual signature. In the instant case, no such case has been made out. In that case another suspicious circumstance was that the testator used to sign on blank paper for use in his cases in court and used to send them to his lawyer through his servants. No such facts have been alleged in the present case. In that case the registration was not done in an usual manner in the registration office. It was done on commission. The Sub-registrar himself did not go to execute the commission but be sent a clerk of his, named Arabali, though the reason given in the application for the issue of the commission, namely, respectability, was not justified in law and no commission should have been issued at all. The clerk was apparently a resident of the same area in which the testator was living and knew him from before. Their Lordships observed that it was a matter worthy of note in the circumstances of that case that the person who went to enquire from the testator whether he had executed the will, was not the Sub-registrar himself who would be a more responsible officer than the clerk. Their Lordships observed that it was a matter worthy of note in the circumstances of that case that the person who went to enquire from the testator whether he had executed the will, was not the Sub-registrar himself who would be a more responsible officer than the clerk. Anyhow the evidence of the clerk was that he found the testator quite hale and hearty. The testator came out from the inner apartment to the verandah of the house and admitted the Execution of the will. Thereafter the testator signed at the bottom of the will in token of his having admitted the genuineness of the will and Dehiram Bora identified the testator. Thereafter Arabali took the document to the office of the Sub-registrar and it was registered. In that view, their Lordships held that the registration by itself would not dispel the suspicious circumstances arising in that case. It may be noticed that those facts do not arise in the instant case. As mentioned earlier the will in the instant case was registered in the usual manner by the registering officer. It is true that in the instant case Anwaruddin Khan, who was the then registering officer, has not been examined on behalf of Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will, nor anything has been brought on the record to indicate whether he was dead or alive when the parties led their evidence before the trial court. In my opinion, the non-examination of Anwaruddin Khan, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, would not cast a doubt on the fact of the registration of the will and its execution and its admission by the testator Bachu Singh. Besides, in that case Arabali deposed that he examined Chandra Narayan Deb, i.e. the testator, at his residence Majilkuchi, who admitted the execution of the will. That was all that Arabali had said in that connection. There was nothing in the Evidence to show that the will was read over to the testator or was read by him before he admitted execution of it. It was broadly stated by Arabali that he examined the testator who admitted the execution of the will. In the opinion of their Lordships that was hardly sufficient in a case of that kind to dispel the serious suspicion which attached to the due execution and attestation of that will. It was broadly stated by Arabali that he examined the testator who admitted the execution of the will. In the opinion of their Lordships that was hardly sufficient in a case of that kind to dispel the serious suspicion which attached to the due execution and attestation of that will. Arabali further deposed that Dehiram Bora identified the testator. Dehiram Bora signed at the bottom of the will thereafter. Arabali did not say that Dehiram was present when the testator had admitted the execution of the will or that the testator signed at the bottom of the will in presence of Dehiram Bora and Dehiram Bora signed in the presence of the testator. Arabali, although stated that the testator signed at the bottom of the will in his presence, he did not say that he signed it in the presence of the testator. Their Lordships referred that aspect of the matter in detail because it was urged on behalf of the respondent, the propounder of the will, that even if the execution and attestation of the will of 29th December, 1943 was open to doubt, the will must be held to be duly executed and attested before Arabali and Dehiram Bora. Dehiram Bora in his turn stated that he identified the testator before the registration clerk Arabali. After identification he signed at the bottom of the document as identifier. In his examination-in-chief be simply stated that he signed at the bottom of the will as an identifier and did not say that Arabali had put any question to the testator about the execution of the will and that the testator admitted the execution. In cross examination he said that the testator signed in his presence at the bottom of the will. He, however, never stated that the will was read over to the testator or was read by him and the testator admitted the execution of the will to him and thereafter be signed the will at the bottom. Therefore, their Lordships held that if those two witnesses Arabali and Dehiram Bora were to be treated as attesting witnesses for the purpose of Section 63 of the Act, it was clear that they completely failed to prove due execution, and attestation of the will as required by that section. Therefore, their Lordships held that if those two witnesses Arabali and Dehiram Bora were to be treated as attesting witnesses for the purpose of Section 63 of the Act, it was clear that they completely failed to prove due execution, and attestation of the will as required by that section. In substance, there was a bald statement of Arabali to the effect that he examined the testator who admitted the execution of the will and there was the statement of Dehiram Bora that at that time he identified the testator before Arabali. It was on that the said will was later registered by the Sub-registrar. The question, therefore, in that case before their Lordships was whether in the circumstances the evidence as to registration disclosed that the testator knew that he was admitting the execution of the will when he was said to have put down his signature at the bottom of the will in presence of Arabali. After scrutinising that evidence their Lordships held that the evidence fell short of satisfying their Lordships in the circumstances of that case that the testator knew that the document the execution of which he was admitting before Arabali, and at the bottom of which he signed, was his will. Therefore, their Lordships were of opinion that the bald fact of registration was insufficient in the circumstances of the case to dispel the suspicious circumstances mentioned earlier and, therefore, their Lordships were/not satisfied about the due execution and registration of that will by the testator and held that the propounder had been unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which surrounded the execution and attestation of the will. In my opinion, the evidence regarding due execution and attestation the instant case is far superior to that of the case which their Lordships were dealing. Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.1) who was a clerk in the post office at Buxar, a resident of village Mahuar which is at a distance of only six miles from Barhampur village, and was one of the attesting witnesses of the will in question, stated in examination-in-chief that he knew Bachu Singh who executed a document in favour of his wife and his nephew Kedarnath. That document was a will. He signed as a witness on that will. The will was read over to Bachu Singh Ganpat Lal was the scribe. That document was a will. He signed as a witness on that will. The will was read over to Bachu Singh Ganpat Lal was the scribe. After it was read over, Bachu Singh put his signature on it. He further stated that all the witnesses saw Bachu Singh putting his signature. Bachu Singh had also seen the putting of signature of witnesses on it. He said that they made attestation on the request of Bachu Singh. At the time when Bachu Singh executed the will, he could understand everything, and he knew that he was executing a will. He stated that the contents of the will were identical to those of the certified copy which was marked as Ext. 1. The witness stood the test of cross-examination well. He stated in cross-examination that Bachu Singh and others while going to the registration office came to the Post Office, which is on the way to the registration office, from the house of Chandra Shekhar Singh. According to him, they came to the Post Office at about 6 a.m. Bachu Singh took him and Bishun Pandey (P.W.2) along with him - and requested them to become attesting witnesses to the will. He stated that the will was filed in the registration office at about 6.30 a.m. in his presence, but it was filed after they had put their signatures on it. He also said that after the will was read over to them, they put their signature. At that time, besides himself, Bachu Singh, Basudeo Narain Singh, Kedarnath Singh, Seolok Pandey and Bishun Pandey, the postmaster, were present there. To the suggestion that Bachu Singh did not execute any document and that they had withheld the original will in order to conceal forgery, he emphatically denied and stated that it was wrong to say that the scribes and all witnesses were in collusion. I find no reason to disbelieve this witness. His evidence is straightforward. In cross-examination, no doubt, he admitted that the nephew of Bachu Singh was married with his niece. But that, in my opinion, would not discredit this witness. It may be noticed that if his niece was married to the nephew of Bachu Singh, it will be obviously against the interest of his niece's husband to support the said will. That clearly indicates that he is a truthful witness. 15. But that, in my opinion, would not discredit this witness. It may be noticed that if his niece was married to the nephew of Bachu Singh, it will be obviously against the interest of his niece's husband to support the said will. That clearly indicates that he is a truthful witness. 15. The other attesting witness to the will in the instant case is Bishun Prasad Pandey (P.W. 2). He was a resident of village Ahirauli, Police Station Buxar. He was a Sub Post master at Buxar in 1950, the relevant year, when the will was executed. He deposed that he knew Bachu Singh who in his presence, executed the will in the name of his wife and Kedarnath Singh. He said that he attested the said will, which was read over to Bachu Singh, Ganpat Sahay read over the will to him, Bachu Singh put his signature on that will after hearing it. When Bachu Singh put his signature all the witnesses were present there. The witnesses saw Bachu Singh putting his signature and Bachu Singh also saw the witnesses putting their signatures on the will. He further stated that he and the other witnesses put their signatures on the request of Bachu Singh. The will (Ext. 1) was read over and shown to this witness, who stated that the will on which he put his signature as a witness had the same contents. This witness also has stood the test of cross-examination wherein he stated that on the day on which the registration was made, he met Bachu Singh in the morning in connection with the will. On that day he learnt that a document was being executed. Bachu Singh had come to the post office in order to meet Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.1). He requested him also to become an attesting witness of the will to which he agreed. On reaching the post office this witness requested Bachu Singh to get the will read over to him. Ganpat Sahay read it over to him. Then Bachu Singh said that he was putting his signature, and requested them to put their signatures in his presence. He also staled that in the registration office there were also other persons with Bachu Singh. There was one Basudeo Singh also among them. He further stated that after putting the signature he went away. Then Bachu Singh said that he was putting his signature, and requested them to put their signatures in his presence. He also staled that in the registration office there were also other persons with Bachu Singh. There was one Basudeo Singh also among them. He further stated that after putting the signature he went away. In my opinion, there is no reason to discard the testimony of this witness, who had absolutely no relationship with Bachu Singh or Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will. He was a Sub-postmaster at the relevant time holding a responsible post. It is quite natural also that since he was known to P.W.1, Bachu Singh requested P.W.2 to be also one of the attesting witnesses. 16. Mr. Kumar, however, contended that both these witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 2 have not stated regarding Basudeo Singh identifying Bachu Singh to the registering officer at the time of the registration. In my opinion they have rightly not said so, as both of them have stated that after attestation they went away. In that circumstance, how could they have seen Basudeo Singh identifying Bachu Singh before the Registrar. In my opinion, both these witnesses have clearly established due execution and attestation of the will as required under Section 63 (c) of the Act which reads as follows :- "Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition nor engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules :- * * * * (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." 17. As against the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, in the present case there is the evidence of Ramadhar Singh (D.W.1). As against the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, in the present case there is the evidence of Ramadhar Singh (D.W.1). It may be recalled that he was one of the defendants in the suit. He is son of Adhirajo Kuer's brother. She had executed and registered will dated 15.7.1959 in favour of her brother Balram Singh and Ramadhar Singh. On objection having been filed by Kedarnath Singh they did not succeed in obtaining letters of administration and the will failed mainly on the ground that Adhirajo Kuer had no right or title under the law to execute the said will. Therefore, obviously this witness is highly interested in deposing that Bachu Singh had not executed the will in favour of Adhirajo Kuer and Kedarnath Singh. Therefore, he deposed that Bachu Singh did not execute any will to Adhirajo Kuer in 1950. Bachu Singh was unable to move and he was not in senses. He never thought of executing the will. The certified copy of the will which the plaintiff filed, was forged Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.1) is a relation of Kedar Singh. Basudeo Singh (High Court witness) is of their family. Bishundeo Prasad Pandey (P.W. 2) and others who are witnesses worked together in the post office. Basudeo Singh and all witnesses were in collusion with Kedar Singh. In cross-examination he admitted that he had not made any enquiry whether Bachu Singh executed will or not. He further stated that there was no original will and, therefore, he had said that the certified copy of the will was forged. In my judgment, he does not appear to be a truthful witness. No reliance can be placed on his evidence. 18. The other witness is Ramjit Singh (D.W.2). He was also examined on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. In examination in chief he stated that Bachu Singh was not in his senses since 5 to 6 years prior to his death. He did not regain consciousness even at the time of his death. He stated that he had no capacity to understand litigation, nor the capacity to execute document. In cross-examination he stated that he had urine trouble. His mind became unsound in 1946 or 1947. He was under medical treatment. He had also gone to Patna for treatment where he was being treated. He did not know under whose treatment he was. He stated that he had no capacity to understand litigation, nor the capacity to execute document. In cross-examination he stated that he had urine trouble. His mind became unsound in 1946 or 1947. He was under medical treatment. He had also gone to Patna for treatment where he was being treated. He did not know under whose treatment he was. To a question put by the court, as to whether Bachu Singh used to talk, he stated that he was not of sound mind; he used to talk. To still (?) another question put by the court, he answered that he had talked with Bachu Singh for the last time in 1951. He had talked with him regarding the cultivation. He was then of sound mind. Thereafter he had no talk with him again. This part of his statement in cross-examination completely contradicts his statement which he made in examination-in-chief. Besides he is unsummoned witness, which fact he admitted in his evidence, and stated that Ramadhar Singh had called him through his man. He also admitted that he owned a truck jointly with Srikrishna Singh. It was suggested to this witness that Srikrishna Singh was Bahnoi of Ramadhar Singh, defendant no. 2 (D.W.1). To that fact, however, he denied to have any knowledge. He also stated in his evidence that he was classmate of the son of Bhola Singh (defendant-appellant). Under these circumstances I do not feel inclined to rely on his evidence. 19. The other witness is Ramchandra Rai examined as D.W.1, on behalf of Bhola Singh, the defendant-appellant. In examination-in chief to a question put to him whether Bachu Singh was of sound mind or not before his death, he answered that he was all right, but again he became mad. He stated that he did not pass urine in regular manner since 5 to 6 years before his death. His mind was not sound since 5 to 6 years before his death. To a question put by the Court that when Bacha Singh became mad, what Bacha Singh did then, the witness answered that he remained sitting, he did not go anywhere. The Court further asked him whether that was the only sign of madness in Bachu Singh. The witness answered that he had told what he knew. He further stated that he never talked with Bachu Singh. The Court further asked him whether that was the only sign of madness in Bachu Singh. The witness answered that he had told what he knew. He further stated that he never talked with Bachu Singh. This clearly indicates that he was contradicting his own previous statement. Besides, in cross-examination he admitted that he had taken land on batai from Bhola Singh. Therefore, in my opinion, this witness is also not reliable. 20. The last witness examined on behalf of the defendant is Bhola Singh who, as mentioned earlier, is the defendant-appellant. That being so his evidence suffers from interestedness. He stated that Bachu Singh had not executed any will to Kedar Singh. Bachu Singh had never gone to Buxar. He had no strength. He suffered from urine disease. He was of unsound mind from five to six years before his death. He used to speak irrelevantly. He neither put his signature nor he marked on any will. The will was forged. The scribe and the witness of the will were creatures of Kedar Singh, who did not file the original will in order to conceal the forgery. In cross-examination he stated that medical treatment was given to Bachu Singh for his mental disorder. Ramsakal Upadhya of Chandra, who used to treat him, was dead. He further stated that he (Bhola Singh) had also taken Bachu Singh to Patna for treatment. He could not say to which doctor he had taken him to Patna for treatment. Prescription was not written for obtaining medicines for him as medicines were supplied by the Hospital. He further stated that he was admitted in the Hospital, but there was no paper in his custody from which it might appear that Bachu Singh was admitted in the Patna Hospital for mental disorder. In my opinion his evidence regarding the illness of Bachu Singh cannot be accepted. If he (Bhola Singh) had taken Bachu Singh to Patna for mental treatment it is highly improbable that there would be no paper in his custody to show that Bachu Singh was really ill or admitted to the Hospital for treatment. According to him, his illness was serious and continuing since five to six years prior to his death. If he (Bhola Singh) had taken Bachu Singh to Patna for mental treatment it is highly improbable that there would be no paper in his custody to show that Bachu Singh was really ill or admitted to the Hospital for treatment. According to him, his illness was serious and continuing since five to six years prior to his death. In that view of the matter in the absence of any such paper it cannot be accepted that Bachu Singh was so ill that he could not have executed the will. His evidence is not worthy of reliance. His evidence regarding non execution of the will also cannot be accepted, in view of the positive and reliable evidence of the two attesting witnesses Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.1) and Bishunprasad Pandey (P.W.2 ) on whom evidence I have already relied. Bhola Singh also stated in evidence that Seolok Pandey was still alive and he was in collusion with Kedar Singh. By reference to Exhibit 1, it appears that Seolok Pandey was also one of the attesting witnesses of the will. Therefore, obviously the purpose of this statement of Bhola Singh was to advocate that Seolak Pandey who was still alive also ought to have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. In my opinion, since he had already examined the attesting witnesses mentioned above it was not necessary for him to examine Seolak Pandey also. His other statement is that Basudeo Namin Singh who was the identifying witness in Exhibit 1 was in collusion with Kedar Singh, because Basudeo Narain Singh has filed a case against him (Bhola Singh). In order to corroborate that statement, as mentioned earlier, a summons which was issued in title Suit No. 64 of 1964, was filed on behalf of Bhola Singh (defendant appellant) and was marked as Ext. A-II. In cross-examination on this point he stated that there were several cases between him and Basudeo Singh. There are papers to show that Since he became old, he could not see, nor remember which was the case between him and Basudeo Singh. He further stated that he did not know as to what kind of case Basudeo Singh had filed against him. He (deponent) had not filed any appearance till the date when he was deposing, He further stated that the summons which he had filed, was at his home. He further stated that he did not know as to what kind of case Basudeo Singh had filed against him. He (deponent) had not filed any appearance till the date when he was deposing, He further stated that the summons which he had filed, was at his home. These statements clearly indicate that Basudeo Singh was not inimical to Bhola Singh. Admittedly Basudeo Narain Singh being son of Sheo Parsan Singh, brother of Bharosa Singh, who was father of Bhola Singh and grandfather of Kedarnath Singh (the plaintiff) is related to Bhola Singh as well as Kedarnath Singh. When I shall refer the evidence of Basudeo Narain Singh it will be evident that he is really in collusion with Bhola Singh, and inimical towards Kedarnath Singh. In that view of the matter the evidence of Bhola Singh on this point also cannot be accepted. 21. Now I turn to consider the evidence of Basudeo Narain Singh who was examined in this Court as a Court witness. I have already mentioned that he was the person, who had identified Bachu Singh to the Registrar as it appears from Ext 1. This witness is a resident of village Brahmpur. He deposed that at the time when he was giving evidence in this Court, he was posted as Deputy Post Master at Patna G.P.O. He was in service Since 1930. He was never permanently posted at Buxar, although he might have worked there as a relieving hand for a short period, that is to say, for one or two months only. He stated that so far as be remembered he was posted at Buxar Sub Post Office as a relieving hand only for a year or two after he joined the service. In the year 1950 he was posted as a clerk in the Head Office at Arrah and used to live also at Arrah. He stated that he knew Bacha Singh who was his first cousin, and who died issueless although he married twice. He was survived by his widow Adhirajo Kuer. He further stated that Bachu Singh used to look after his properties himself and after his death his properties were inherited by his widow and it was she who was in possession thereof. He was survived by his widow Adhirajo Kuer. He further stated that Bachu Singh used to look after his properties himself and after his death his properties were inherited by his widow and it was she who was in possession thereof. It will be noticed that this statement in chief that Bachu Singh used to look after his properties himself, also clearly indicates that he was not seriously ill as deposed by the various defence witnesses referred to above. Further, he stated that during the summer of 1950 when he was on leave and had gone to his village home Brahmpur, he met Bachu Singh there, who was aged about 70-75 years in the year 1950. During that time he learnt about illness of his maternal uncle of village Chhata in the district of Balia. Therefore, he left Brahampur one day, in the month of June, 1950 when the Courts were being held in the morning, for village Chhata via Buxar. He travelled from Brahampur to Buxar by bus. When he reached Buxar, at bus stand, close to the Sub-Post Office Buxar, he suddenly came across Kedarnath Singh (P.W.3) and Bindeshwari Singh (P.W.1). Both P.Ws. 1 and 3 told him that they were, in fact, waiting for him (Basudeo Narain Singh) and requested him that he had to go to the Registry office, where he would have to identify Bachu Singh who was Executing a will in favour of his wife and who was also executing a Patta in respect of some lands in his (Basudeo Singh's) favour. He stated that at first he expressed his unwillingness because of lack of time as he had to rush to his maternal uncle who was ill at village Chhata but on their insistence and on their assurance that it would take hardly ten minutes, he accompanied them to the Registry Office, Buxar, where they handed over to him a paper, which was already written out and asked him to identify the signature of Bachu Singh. On his enquiry as to where Bachu Singh was, he was informed that he was ill since last night of his usual ailment of urine trouble, and it was not possible for him to come to the Registry Office, but he would be coming to the office after an hour or so. On his enquiry as to where Bachu Singh was, he was informed that he was ill since last night of his usual ailment of urine trouble, and it was not possible for him to come to the Registry Office, but he would be coming to the office after an hour or so. He stated that in that circumstance he identified the signature of Bachu Singh on the document which was handed over to him in the absence of Bachu Singh. He also identified the signature of Bachu Singh on the Patta, which was executed by Bachu Singh in favour of the deponent. Thereafter he stated that be left the Registry Office for Chhata. 22. In my opinion, this witness was deliberately trying to minimise the effect of the identification of Bachu Singh, which he made in the will before the Registrar. He concocted a false story in his examination-in-chief that while going to Chhata, when he reached bus stand of Buxar, he accidentally met P.Ws. 1 and 3 there, who requested him to come to the Registry Office for identification. In cross-examination, he contradicted his previous statement by saying that Kedar Singh knew about his reaching Buxar from before. A reference to his further statement in cross-examination on this point would reveal that it was not possible for P.W.3 to have known the programme for Basudeo Singh from before, as he further stated in cross examination that the letter which brought the news of his maternal uncle's illness was addressed to his brother Kripa Narain Singh, whose family generally stayed at home, but at the time when the letter was received, Kripa Narain Singh was not at home, and the deponent was by chance there and, therefore he (Basudeo Singh) thought it fit and propel to proceed to his maternal uncle to see him during his illness. In that view of the matter it was by chance that Basudeo Singh got the letter regarding the illness of his maternal uncle, and then he thought of proceeding to Chhata via Buxar. Therefore, it was highly improbable for P.W.1 or 3 to have known from before that Basudeo Singh would by chance receive the letter regarding the illness of his maternal uncle and would proceed to Chhata. Hence I am not inclined to accept the evidence of Basudeo Singh on this point. Therefore, it was highly improbable for P.W.1 or 3 to have known from before that Basudeo Singh would by chance receive the letter regarding the illness of his maternal uncle and would proceed to Chhata. Hence I am not inclined to accept the evidence of Basudeo Singh on this point. His further evidence regarding leaving the Registry Office just after he had put his signature on the will, and the Patta, identifying the executant, is also not worthy of reliance. In my opinion, he could not have been allowed to leave the Registry Office unless the Registering Officer was satisfied about the identification of the executant on the will and the Patta by Basudeo Singh. According to Section 35 of the Registration Act read with Rule 59 of the Registration Rules, if an executant is unknown to the Registering Officer, the executaut has to be identified by some other person, then alone the Registrar would register the document and make the endorsement on it. It will be relevant to quote certain endorsements made on Ext. 1 which reads as follows :- "Presented for registration between the hours of 6-30 and 9-30 A.M. on the 22nd day of June, 1950 at the Buxar Sub Registry office by Bachu Singh, son of Ram Bharosa Singh of Brahampur, thana Brahampur, District Shahabad, by caste Chhatri, by profession cultivator. Sd. Bachu Singh, By my own pen 22-6-50. Sd. Anwaruddin Khan 22-6-50 Registering Officer. Execution is admitted by the above Bachu Singh who is identified by Basudeo Singh son of Sheoprasan Singh of the same place, caste and profession. 145 V. 24/50 Sd. Bachu Singh, By my own pen. Sd. Anwaruddin Khan, Registering Officer, 22-6-50. 146 V 24/50. Sd. Basudeo Narain Singh, By my own 22-6-50. pen Registered in Book No. III, Volume No. 2 pages 60 to 62 being No. 25 for the year 1850. Sd. Anwaruddin Khan, 5-7-50. Registering Officer". The order in which the above endorsements were made, it is obvious that Basudeo Singh could have put his signature identifying Bachu Singh in his absence. Sd. Basudeo Narain Singh, By my own 22-6-50. pen Registered in Book No. III, Volume No. 2 pages 60 to 62 being No. 25 for the year 1850. Sd. Anwaruddin Khan, 5-7-50. Registering Officer". The order in which the above endorsements were made, it is obvious that Basudeo Singh could have put his signature identifying Bachu Singh in his absence. When the witness was confronted in cross-examination that he could not have left the Registry Office without also giving his signature in the register maintained in the Registry Office to show that he had identified Bachu Singh before the Registrar, he admitted that he was required by the clerk in the Registration Office to sign and give his thumb impression on a register which was presented to him. However, he insisted that he was made to sign to both the will and the Patta as also on the register almost simultaneously without having identified Bachu Singh before the Registrar. On further confrontation in cross-examination be admitted that he had once occasion to execute some rehan deeds, which were also registered. He further stated that he was conversant with the procedure of the Registration of documents. He stated that in those documents which he had executed the identifying witnesses; had signed in his presence after he had signed the documents in question. He also stated that in his documents identifying witnesses identified him in the presence of the Registrar before the Registration. This clearly indicates that in the instant case also he could not have left the Registry Office without having identified Bachu Singh before the Registrar and before the signature and thumb impression of both Basudeo Singh and Bachu Singh were taken on the register maintained by the Registry Office and before the said endorsements were made by Anwaruddin Khan, the Registering Officer. The relevant portion of Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 provides as follows :- "58. The relevant portion of Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 provides as follows :- "58. Particulars to be endorsed on documents admitted to registration- (1) On every document admitted to registration, other than a copy of a decree or order, or a copy sent to a Registering Officer under Section 89, there shall be endorsed from time to time the following particulars, namely : (a) the signature and addition of every person admitting the execution of the document, and if such execution has been admitted by the representative, assign or agent of any person, the signature and addition of such representative, assign or agent; (b) the signature and addition of every person examined in reference to such document under any of the provisions of this Act............". Rule 38 of the Registration Rules prescribes as to how endorsements have to be made by the Registrar. It mentions that the endorsements required by Section 58 shall be written in Form No. III in Appendix IV. According to that form it is clear that the thumb impressions of both the executant and the identifier have to be obtained and then the Registering Officer also will put his signature thereto. Hence the statements of this witness that he had identified Bachu Singh in the absence of Bachu Singh, cannot be relied. In cross-examination he further stated that the signature on the Patta appeared to him to be that of Bachu Singh though it was not made in his presence. Later on he changed his statements by stating that he could not say whether the alleged signature of Bachu Singh on the Patta or on the will were genuine signature or not. This witness was falsely trying to support the case of Bhola Singh (the defendant appellant) by alleging that the will was forged. Since the Patta was executed by Bachu Singh in favour of the witnesses and it was registered on the same day, he was trying to modify his statements by stating that the signature of Bachu Singh both on the Patta as well as on the will was forged and not genuine. In cross-examination this witness had to admit that Kedar Singh had filed a suit for partition in respect of the two rooms. In the said suit Basudeo Singh and his brother, Dip Narain Singh were defendants although he stated that the suit was mainly against Dip Narain Singh. In cross-examination this witness had to admit that Kedar Singh had filed a suit for partition in respect of the two rooms. In the said suit Basudeo Singh and his brother, Dip Narain Singh were defendants although he stated that the suit was mainly against Dip Narain Singh. He (Basudeo Singh) further stated that he had filed a written statement in that suit. In cross-examination be also admitted that the will which was executed by Adhirajo Kuer, and for which a probate proceeding was filed by Ramadhar Singh, Basudeo Singh's brother, Kripa Narain Singh might have deposed in favour of Ramadhar Singh. All these statements clearly indicate that he was inimical to Kedernath Singh, and was trying to help Basudeo Singh by falsely deposing that he had identified Bachu Singh before the Registrar in absence of Bachu Singh. We also observed his demeanour, and the halting manner in which he answered the various questions put to him, also showed that he was not a truthful witness and he was trying to conceal the facts. In my opinion, the fact is that he had identified Bachu Singh in his presence, before the Registrar. 23. I have already held that the execution of the will and due attestation are fully established by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who have clearly stated that when Bachu Singh put the signature on the will, he understood it fully that he was executing a will and he did so after the will was read over to him. Their evidence coupled with the evidence of Ram Swaroop Singh (P.W.4) and Ramnath Pandey (P.W.5) clearly establish also that when Bachu Singh executed the will he was in disposing state of mind P.W.4 who is also a resident of Brahampur, stated in his evidence that he knew Bachu Singh who had understanding capacity in 1950. He stated that it was wrong to say that he was ill in 1950, and due to his illness he lost his understanding capacity. He had fallen ill for about a day at the time of his death. He further stated that the house of Bachu Singh is approximately 50 houses away from the house of P.W.4. Therefore, this witness not living far off, in my opinion, was a competent witness to depose regarding the disposing capacity of Bachu Singh. He had fallen ill for about a day at the time of his death. He further stated that the house of Bachu Singh is approximately 50 houses away from the house of P.W.4. Therefore, this witness not living far off, in my opinion, was a competent witness to depose regarding the disposing capacity of Bachu Singh. Nothing had been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to discredit this witness. In my opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve him. Similar is the evidence of P.W.5. He is also a resident of village Brahampur and he is also a Gram Panchayat Sewak. He seated that he knew Bachu Singh who had understanding capacity in 1950. He further stated that it was wrong to say that in 1950 he lost his capacity to understand a thing. He also stated that his house is near the house of Bachu Singh intervened by a road. Hence he is very closer neighbour of Bachu Singh. Nothing has been placed before us to detract the value of his evidence. In my opinion, his evidence is worthy of reliance. 24. Considering the evidence of all these witnesses, in my opinion, Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will has been able to dispel the suspicious circumstance also regarding absence of disposing mind of Bachu Singh, and has been able to establish due execution, attestation and registration of the will. 25. Mr. Kumar, however, strenuously argued that Kedarnath Singh had taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and that by itself was a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will. In order to find support to his argument he relied on another decision of the Supreme Court in (3) H. Vekatachala Iyengar V.B.N. Thimmajamma and others (A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 443). In my opinion, no doubt, it is true that if a propounder of a will takes a prominent part in execution, attestation and registration of a will which confers substantial benefit on him, that is a circumstance which excites the suspicion of the court and calls on it to be vigilant and cautious in appreciating the evidence in support of the will. It is observed in William on Executors and Administrators, Volume, thirteenth edition, at page 92 : “Although the rule of Roman Law that Qui se scripsit haeredem could take no benefit under a will does not prevail in the law of England, yet, where the person who prepares the instrument, or conducts its execution, is himself benefited by its dispositions, that is a circumstance which ought generally to excite the suspicion of the court, and calls on it to be vigilant and zealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument in favour of which it ought not to pronounce, unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper does express the true will of the deceased.” Similarly, in (4) Fulton V. Andrew, (1875) 7. H.L. 448 it was observed :- “...... those who take a benefit under a will, and have been instrumental in preparing or obtaining it, have thrown upon them the onus of showing the righteousness of the transaction......” In (5) Barry V. Bultin : (1838) 2 Moo PC 480 at page 482, two rules of law were pointed out for appreciation of evidence in such circumstances, which are: “first, that the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator ;” the second is, that, if a party writes or prepares a will under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite the suspicion of the court and calls upon it to be vigilant and zealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true will of the deceased.” The above observations have also been quoted with approval in (3) A.I.R 1959 Supreme Court 443 (supra). I am in agreement with those observations. They are based on well established principle of law. However, in my view, every part which a propounder takes in execution and attestation of a will cannot be called a prominent part. The part which he played was prominent one or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. I am in agreement with those observations. They are based on well established principle of law. However, in my view, every part which a propounder takes in execution and attestation of a will cannot be called a prominent part. The part which he played was prominent one or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The prominent part taken by the propounder in (3) A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 443 (supra) was clearly distinguishable from the part taken by Kedarnath Singh in the instant case. In that case, it appears from Paragraph 27 at page 454 of the judgment that the appellant whose sons had received the benefits in the will, had admittedly taken a very prominent part in bringing about execution of the will. He had prepared the draft, and it was at his dictation that the scribe wrote the will. On the important question as to when and how the instructions were given by the testatrix and whether or not in preparing the draft these instructions had been faithfully carried out, the only evidence adduced in that case was that of the appellant and no one else. That apart, the appellant in that case obtained a power of attorney from the testatrix on the same day on which the will was executed. That clearly indicated that the appellant was keen on taking possession of management of the properties under his control even before the death of the testatrix. Therefore, their Lordships in that case had observed that the appellant was not able to dispel the suspicious circumstance, and failed to fully satisfy the valid execution of the will by the testatrix. It may be noticed that in that case their Lordships themselves had observed that in deciding whether a propounder of a will has been able to dispel the suspicious circumstances or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. No hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. No hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. In the case of (6) Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others V. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, reported in A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 529, their Lordships although following the principles laid down in (3) A.I.R. 1959 Supreme Court 443 (Supra) and (2) A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 567 (Supra) on the fact and circumstances held that the propounder of the will had established due execution and attestation of the will. Their Lordships further observed that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. On the point of taking prominent part by the propounder there is still another decision of the Supreme Court which it seems has not been noticed by Mr. Kumar. In (7) Gorantla Thataiab V. Thotekura Venkata Subbaiah and others, reported in A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1332, their Lordships observed that where the propounder took a prominent part in the execution of the will which conferred substantial benefits on him that itself was a suspicious circumstance, attending the execution of the will, and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the Court should proceed in a vigilant and cautions manner. In my opinion, the facts of that case also are, clearly distinguishable from those in the instant case. In that case the propounder of the will took a prominent part in summoning the attesting witnesses and the scribe and in procuring the writing materials for the execution of the will. But in the instant case on the evidence, which I have relied, no such prominent parts as played by Kedarnath Singh could be spelled out, P.W.1 on whose evidence I have relied, stated in evidence that the will was scribed, a day prior to the execution, and it was scribed at about 6 or 7 P.M. at the residence of Chandra Shekhar, Pleader. It was scribed by Ganpat Lal. At the time when it was scribed, Bachu Singh, Basudeo Narain Singh and the deponent and two more persons whom he did not know, were present there besides the scribe. He did not name Kedarnath Singh as one of the persons, even present there. It was scribed by Ganpat Lal. At the time when it was scribed, Bachu Singh, Basudeo Narain Singh and the deponent and two more persons whom he did not know, were present there besides the scribe. He did not name Kedarnath Singh as one of the persons, even present there. He further stated after the will was scribed, on the next day Bachu Singh and others went to the Post Office and requested P.W.1 and Bishun Pandey (P.W.2) to accompany him to the Registry Office for attestation of the will. Here also he did not mention that Kedarnath Singh was also one of the persons, who went to the Post Office to request them for attestation. It was only in the Registry Office, where the will was executed and attested, Kedar Singh was present along with others. Similar is the evidence of P.W.2, except that he was not present when the will was being scribed. Kedarnath Singh also in his evidence clearly stated that when the will was scribed, he was not present there. However, he frankly admitted that he was present when the will was executed, attested and registered. Simply because Kedarnath Singh was present at the time of the execution and registration of the will it cannot be said that he had taken prominent parts in execution and registration of the will. It is well established that mere physical presence of the propounder at the time of execution of the will, without anything more, is not such a circumstances as to arouse the suspicion of a court about disposing capacity of the testator, or to make it think that the disposition made under the will was not with a free mind, or that undue influence was brought to bear on the testator. In this connection it will be relevant to refer to illustration (vii) of Section 61 of the Act which reads : “A, being in such a state of health as to be capable of exercising his own judgment and volition, B used urgent intercession and persuasion with him to induce him to make a will of a certain purport. A, in consequence of the intercession and persuasion, but in the free exercise of his judgment and volition, makes his will in the manner recommended by B. The will is not rendered invalid by the intercession and persuasion of B.” 26. Mr. A, in consequence of the intercession and persuasion, but in the free exercise of his judgment and volition, makes his will in the manner recommended by B. The will is not rendered invalid by the intercession and persuasion of B.” 26. Mr. Kumar, however, referred to the evidence of Basudeo Narain Singh, the High Court witness, whose evidence I have already referred to. I have already given sufficient reasons for disbelieving this witness. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on his statement regarding the prominent part played at Kedarnath Singh. 27. It was further contended on behalf of the appellant that Kedarnath Singh and Adhirajo Kuer had exercised undue influence on Bachu Singh through out and they were instrumental in getting the said will executed. In my judgment, since I have already held due attestation and execution of the will, the burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence is on the appellant. In (8) Naresh Charan Das Gupta V. Parash Charan Das Gupta and another (A.I.R. 1955 Supreme Court 363) their Lordships observed that when it has been proved that a will has been executed with due solemnities by a person of competent understanding and apparently a free agent, the burden of proving that it was executed under, undue influence is on the party who alleges it. In the instant case, no material has been placed on behalf of the appellant to establish that Kedarnath Singh or Adhirajo Kuer had exercised any undue influence over Bachu Singh for the execution of the said will. Therefore, this contention also of learned counsel for the appellant fails, and I hold that Kedarnath Singh or Adhirajo Kuer had not exercised any undue influence on Bachu Singh. 28. As a last resort it was contended on behalf of the appellant that no value should be attached to the certified copy of the will for the purpose of its due registration in the absence of the original will. This contention also, in my judgment, cannot be accepted. I have already held that the original will was lost. In the absence of the original the certified copy (Ext. 1) was admitted by the court below. In (9) Arya Pratinidhi Sabha V. Dev Raj Vir Bhan and another (A.I.R. 1963 Punjab 208) D.K. Mahajan and P.C. Pandit, JJ. This contention also, in my judgment, cannot be accepted. I have already held that the original will was lost. In the absence of the original the certified copy (Ext. 1) was admitted by the court below. In (9) Arya Pratinidhi Sabha V. Dev Raj Vir Bhan and another (A.I.R. 1963 Punjab 208) D.K. Mahajan and P.C. Pandit, JJ. were also dealing with a case where the original will was withheld and its certified copy was filed. Their Lordships at page 213 observed :- “.......in view of the fact that the original will is not available; its secondary evidence can be led as required by Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The courts below have unanimously come to the conclusion that secondary evidence is admissible in this case, for the reason that the will is being withheld, by the respondents. According to Clause (f) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition and contents of a document when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence, and in such a case according to Section 65, it is only the certified copy of the document which is admissible. According to Section 57 of the Indian Registration Act certified copies of documents registered have to be supplied by the Registrar to all persons applying for the same and according to Subsection (5) of Section 57, such copies under this section shall be admissible for the purpose to prove the contents of the original documents.” Their Lordships further observed that so far as the execution of the original will was concerned, it was proved by the endorsement of the Registrar. That endorsement left no manner of doubt that the will was executed by the testator to whom it was read over and who admitted its contents to be correct. Therefore a certified copy of that will would be admissible in evidence in view of the fact that the original was not forthcoming and was being withheld by the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no merit in this contention either. 29. Therefore a certified copy of that will would be admissible in evidence in view of the fact that the original was not forthcoming and was being withheld by the respondents. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no merit in this contention either. 29. On a vigilant review of the entire evidence in the instant case, in my opinion, Kedarnath Singh, the propounder of the will, has been able to establish due execution, attestation and registration of the will in dispute, by dispelling all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will referred to by the appellant. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the court below, which have not to be upheld. 30. In the result, the judgment and decree of the court below are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs. A.B.N. SINHA, J. I agree, Appeal dismissed.