JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This appeal is against the grant of probate of a will dated 25-10-1968 executed by one Satyendranath Das, is favour of his first cousin Ushalata Soo. 2. Satyendranath and the objectors Defendants 1 to 4 and original Defendant No. 5 (on whose death his LRs. have been brought on record), were brothers They had separated and divided their properties by partition. One Gopinath Das was the paternal uncle of the testator and the objectors. Ushalata is the daughter of Gopinath. She married one Dasarathi Soo and the testator married the sister of Dasarathi Soo, Ushalata was related in two ways: as a first cousin and as sister-in-law Dasarathi, the husband of Ushalata, was a rich merchant and was in very affluent circumstances. He died around 1939-40 leaving behind Ushalata and the children, who lived at Memari, the husband's place. The testator had no son, He brought up Usha's son. Fate however struck a blow. The son died when he was aged about 15-16 years. The daughters of Ushalata were given a way in marriage in due course. One of the daughters expired leaving behind a daughter, Bulu by name. About this time, wife of Satyendra died of small pox. Satyendranath was a lonely man and was in need of help and assistance. Ushalata, the widow of a rich merchant, was in distress and hard up. Satyendranath took her in, gave her food and shelter. In return, Ushalata looked after him and the house hold, did the cooking and the daily chores. 16-17 years passed away thus. On 25-10-1968, Satyendranath executed a will maked as Ext. 6 and breathed his last on 17-11-1968. When the objectors took steps for obtaining succession certificate, Ushalata filed the application for probate on 4-1-1969. 3. The legatee asserted that the will was the last will of the testator and had been executed by him while he was in a sound disposing mind. She asserted that in course of her having with the testator for around 17 years, the testator had developed trust and faith in her and believed that the property bequeathed would be looked after and be disposed by her in accordance with his wishes. 4. The brothers of Satyendranath entered caveat and challenged the genuineness and due execution of the will. 4. The brothers of Satyendranath entered caveat and challenged the genuineness and due execution of the will. They alleged that the testator lacked testamentary capacity and the alleged will had been obtained by exercise of undue influence. The testator was suffering from high blood-pressure and on 24-10-1968 he had a massive stroke and was striken by paralysis of right side of his body. He did not recover and died in a delirious state. The legatee had manufactured the will with the assistance of her brother and son-in-law. 5. The legatee examined four witnesses. The first witness proved certain specimen signatures of testator furnished to the State Bank of India while opening an Account. The second witness was a tenant of the testator, who had been occupying the ground floor for about twenty years. Satyendranath had kept the first floor for himself. He deposed that about 20 to 22 days before his death the testator had a fall and was not thereafter able to work without assistance. He saw him resting on his arm-chair and browsing over books, news-papers and periodicals till 2 to 3 days before his death He asserted that he used to visit the testator every ultimate day and was present when he fell down. He lifted him up and placed him on the bed with the help of the legatee. He repelled the allegation that the testator had suffered from paralysis or a deranged mind. The legatee examined herself as the third witness and substantiating generally her own case corroborated the tenant. She asserted that the testator was in a sound disposing mind till his death. She stated that the testator fell down a day after the execution of the will. The fourth witness was one of the attestors and also the brother of the legatee. He deposed that he used to visit the testator and the legatee at regular intervals of 4-5 days, on the day previous to the day on which the will was executed, (i.e., on 24-10-1963) he was requested by the testator to come to him in the evening of the following day. He came to his place on the next day. At that time one Banabehari Dey was already in the bed-room with the testator Banabehari was a neighbour. Satyendranath was writing something on a piece of paper, the caption whereof was "Will". He came to his place on the next day. At that time one Banabehari Dey was already in the bed-room with the testator Banabehari was a neighbour. Satyendranath was writing something on a piece of paper, the caption whereof was "Will". As soon as he finished writing, he read out and put his signature in his presence and in the presence of Banabehari. Then Banabehari and he attested the document. He proved attestation and the signatures of the testator. He corroborated the legatee in other material particulars. 6. The objectors led evidence to establish that the testator was neither free nor capable while executing the will. D.W. 1 was a doctor, a specialist in medicine He testified that the testator was suffering from cerebral thrombosis and had been stricken by paralysis of the right side of the body his blood pressure was high, his speech was feeble and incoherant. He proved the certificate granted by him (Ext. A) on 18-11-1968, i.e., a day after the death of the testator. Therein he stated that Satyendranath was suffering from cerebral thrombosis and died of circulatory failure on 17-11-1968 at 4.30 p.m. The next witness for the objectors was another doctor. He deposed that in October, 1968, he attended on the testator. Before that be was suffering from high blood pressure, hernia and cataract and glaucoma. On 25-10-1968 the son of one of the objectors called him in the morning saying the Satyendranath was suffering from dysentery and other stomach ailment. He found the testator suffering from diarrhoea and in a semi-comatose state. He was unable also to move his right hand and leg as the medicines prescribed by him brought about no improvement he advised the testator's relations to call for a specialist. Nonetheless, until the death of Satyendranath, he was visiting him dally. D.W. 3 is one of the objectors. Besides narrating generally their relationship, family background and the statue, he asserted that the testator was suffering from contract of the right eye and glaucoma in the left. He was not able to read or do any work. He stated that his mother and a servant used to live with the testator after his wife's death and looked after him. He deposed that sometime before 25-10-1968, Satyendranath was suffering from diarrhoea and had high blood pressure and his right side had been afflicted with paralysis. He was not able to read or do any work. He stated that his mother and a servant used to live with the testator after his wife's death and looked after him. He deposed that sometime before 25-10-1968, Satyendranath was suffering from diarrhoea and had high blood pressure and his right side had been afflicted with paralysis. In the morning of 25-10-1968, he had been to the testator's house and found him in a semi-comatose state with hands trembling At that time he was under the treatment of D.W. 2 Later on D.W. 1 was called for. From 25-10-1968 till his death, Satyendranath was unable to speak. He was unable to raise his hand, read or write. The last witness examined was the sister's son of the objectors and the testator. During the period of the testator's illness, he was visiting daily. He stated that the testator suffered from piles and hernia. He had high blood pressure and one of his eyes bad been afflicted with glaucoma. He was in a semi-comatose state, occasionally regaining sense. His right side had been completely paralysed. 7. Upon a consideration of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, the learned District Judge granted probate holding the will to be genuine and to have been duly executed by Satyendranath while in a sound disposing mind. 8. Mr. R.N. Das, the learned Counsel for the object or Appellants, has vehemently urged that the testator was physically weak and mentally deranged long before his death; he was under the influence and physical control of the legatee that is to say, he was not free and capable: various features excited suspicion: namely, absence of independent advice, the propounder taking active part and receiving benefits under the will her brother figuring as an attestor, execution in total secrecy, non-registration, exclusion of close relations from dispositions under the will, absence of details of property and vagueness of the contents and non-examination of the other attestor. He further urged that the affidavit filed by the propounder disproved attestation. 9. Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the legatee, supported the Judgment by urging, that on the facts and in the circumstances, the will was a natural one. The fact that the testator had himself written out the entire will dispelled any suspicion and established that he had testamentary capacity. 9. Mr. B.M. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the legatee, supported the Judgment by urging, that on the facts and in the circumstances, the will was a natural one. The fact that the testator had himself written out the entire will dispelled any suspicion and established that he had testamentary capacity. If the testator selected some of his relations, that could not be a suspicious circumstance. The circumstances on the other hand, showed that the objectors had been justly excluded. 10. Before we discuss the evidence and the circumstances against the background of the law, it would be profitable to reproduce the will in its entirety. Will. With my best knowledge and good and sound mind I am making this will written in my own handwriting as thus: After my death this property will be temporarily occupied by my sister Srimati Ushalata Soo so long she will be living, after her death this property will be divided among one Harishankar Sahu's wife Bulu the grand daughter of Usha now residing at Balimela, Koraput. When they will come here they must remain here so long they want to remain here, if required permanently. They ate to use the utencils of all kinds they required and furnitures and other things also, except the Puja articles. All Puja articles that are with me should be handed over to my younger Brother Sj. Hemendranath Das to preserve them for the use of Durga Puja. All my utencils, Table, Khat, Chairs, Radios will be used by Usha and Bulu and Bulu's children. I empower hereby all my cases in the Court will be contested and all the decrees will be executed on my behalf and can institute fresh cases in the court of law. She will collect all the House rent from the tenants of this quarters and can keep the exact the tenants if required. All S. Bank acct and fixed deposit acct will be transferred in Usha's name. Satyendranath Das, 25-10-68 From my bank account and fixed deposits the amount will be divided as follows: (1) Out of the fixed deposits Rs. 1,0001- (One thousand) will be paid to Subal Chandra De. (2) 500/- (five hundred) to Sphatks youngest son. (3) 500/- (five hundred) to Sj. Shibaram Sphatic's eldest son. (4) 500/- (five hundred) to Sj. Krishna Chaitanya Bisoyee Sphatic's second son. 1,0001- (One thousand) will be paid to Subal Chandra De. (2) 500/- (five hundred) to Sphatks youngest son. (3) 500/- (five hundred) to Sj. Shibaram Sphatic's eldest son. (4) 500/- (five hundred) to Sj. Krishna Chaitanya Bisoyee Sphatic's second son. From the S.B. Account: After the expenditure of the death ceremony which will be not more than Rs. 500/-. Balance will be kept in hand for other expenses. The balance will be drawn and will be handed over to Bulu Satyendranath Das 25-10-68. 11. The testator had read up to 8th or 9th standard. He had not much of education. He wrote out the will himself in his own way without assistance of a lawyer, that too in English. It has net been disputed in the appeal that the writing and the signatures appearing on the will (Ext. 6) were of Satyendranath. The only contention raised has been that it was only a draft prepared by the testator and the same had been converted after his death to a will with the help of the so called attestors. 12. Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) upon a review of the authorities In H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, laid down the following propositions (as formulated by Chandrachud. J., as he then was) in Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Others, . 1. Stated generally, a will has to by proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof at other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. 2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving is execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. 3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally the onus which lies on the propound can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. 4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances is stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which be receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the executing of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, m cases where the circumstances amendment upon the execution of the will excite the suspicious of the Court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. 5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in deter mining the question as to whether an instrument produce j before the Court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the, testa for. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. 6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a pare of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) in Smt. Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and Others, observed: In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded m Suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. What, generally, in an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator, It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will. 13. The learned District Judge was alive to the law. In an admirably lucid and well discussed judgment, he disbelieved the pleas of the objectors and upheld the will. We proceed to appraise the evidence P.W. 1 is a formal witness, who proved the specimen signatures of the testator. P.W. 2, the tenant, is a competent witness. He had no axe to grind. He was neither interested in the propounder nor ill-disposed towards the objectors. A vague suggestion that the propounder would desist from pursuing him for enhanced rent if he supported her case, in our view, is too far fetched and does not hold water. He had been living in the ground floor of the house of the testator for about two decades. During the testator's last 20, 25 days, this witness saw him moving about and attending to ordinary pursuits. He testified to the accidental fall that Satyendranath had and the assistance which he was needing while walking. He stoutly refuted the allegation that Satyendranath was suffering from paralysis or any mental derangement. During the testator's last 20, 25 days, this witness saw him moving about and attending to ordinary pursuits. He testified to the accidental fall that Satyendranath had and the assistance which he was needing while walking. He stoutly refuted the allegation that Satyendranath was suffering from paralysis or any mental derangement. He stated that Satyendranath occasionally had aliment of the stomach or head, or urinary troubles and was receiving treatment. His evidence inspires our confidence as it did with the learned District Judge. The testimony of the propounder examined as P.W. 2 received general corroboration from P.W. 1. Her positive case was that the testator had a fall and thereafter needed assistance while walking. He used to spend his time sitting on his bed and reading books, magazines, periodicals etc. His mind had not been affected nor was he afflicted by paralysis. A day previous to the fall, her brother P.W. 4 told her that a will had been executed by Satyendranath. P.W. 4. is a brother of the propounder and also an attestor. That by itself is not enough to reject his evidence. An explanation has been given by the propounder that the other attestor was not available for examination as he was under the control of the objectors. The allegation is corroborated by the affidavit of Banabehari, the other attestor, hied by the objectors. We have accepted it to the extent that the allegation of the propounder is substantiated by the affidavit otherwise has no evidentiary value; Banabehari not having come forward to examine himself as a witness so as to be subjected to cross-examination by the other side. The case was not one which was being disposed of on affidavits. 14. The objectors examined an equal number of witnesses. The doctor who in point of time came first on the scene was D.W. 2. He stated that the testator suffered from high-blood-pressure, cataract of the right eye and glaucoma. Their plea in the objection however was that the testator had high blood-pressure and on 24-10-1968 was stricken with paralysis and thereafter remained in a semi-comatose condition until his death. From the entry in the prescription register (Ext. B) it is seen that he had prescribed medicines for diarrohea only. He was maintaining a prescription register. Their plea in the objection however was that the testator had high blood-pressure and on 24-10-1968 was stricken with paralysis and thereafter remained in a semi-comatose condition until his death. From the entry in the prescription register (Ext. B) it is seen that he had prescribed medicines for diarrohea only. He was maintaining a prescription register. If Satyendranath had a stroke of paralysis and was in a semi comatose condition, we would normally expect some prescription for the aliments alleged. There is no such entry in the register. His version that he was visiting the patient even after the specialist was called, appeared unusual and unbelievable to the trial Judge. We also concur. The specialist categorically contradicted him by stating that he was not sure if the patient was suffering from or had cataract or glaucoma in any of the eyes. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not know what was prescribed by the specialist (though he was present then). His statement that the testator was alone in the house is untrue. It is the case of the objectots that the propounder was living in the same house. He admitted that he was never asked to come after the specialist was caned. It was, therefore, improper that he would be visiting the patient very often. His statement that he maintained patient register and wrote the medicines prescribed, contradicted his version that he was not granting prescription to Satyendranath prior to 26-10-1968 while he was attending to him. He stated further that he could not say if Satyendranath had cataract or glaucoma. He further stated that he could not remember if he had met Dr. De, the specialist, during the period from 26-10-1968 to 17-11-1968. The evidence of this witness is replete with contractions and we agree with the trial Judge who had the opportunity to observe the witness that D.W. 1 is not a reliable witness. Next is the specialist. He stated that he used to grant prescriptions and prepare note of pulse rate, blood pressure, body temperature and respiration. These records have not been produced in court. A plea has been taken that those were lost. He granted the certificate (Ext. A) a day after the death of Satyendranath. The cause of death has been said to be cerebral thrombosis. These records have not been produced in court. A plea has been taken that those were lost. He granted the certificate (Ext. A) a day after the death of Satyendranath. The cause of death has been said to be cerebral thrombosis. In the certificate there is no mention during which period Satyendranath was under his treatment and what other ailments he had. The certificate, as deposed to by him, was granted at the request of Hemendranath who wanted the same for making claims under insurance policy. The best evidence to corroborate the evidence of D.W. 1. was the prescriptions issued and the notes prepared by the specialist. The plea taken by the objectors to explain the non production is too flimsy to be accepted. Rightly did the trial court reject the explanation and drew adverse inference. We agree. In our opinion, those documents had those been produced, would have belled the case of the objectors that Satyendranath was in a semi comatose state from 24-10-1968. The evidence of D.W. 3 appears unnatural to us. The learned District Judge has discussed his evidence and for the reasons given by him, we hold that it is difficult to believe this witness. D.W. 4 is one of the objectors and he admitted that he was not present w hen the doctors were attending on Satyendranath. In conclusion, we reject the plea of the objectors that the testator was in a semi-comatose state and did not possess mental or physical capacity to execute the will. 15. We may now advert to one important aspect of the, case. As we have already said, it has not been disputed before us that the writing and the signatures in Ext. 6 belonged to Satyendranath. We find from Ext. 6 that the date 25-10-1968' was put at two places by Satyendranath. If that be so and as the genuineness and authenticity of Ext. 6 we accept, the controversy whether Satyendranath had suffered from paralysis of the right side of his body or was unable to speak or was in a semi-comatose state until his death pales into insignificance. The document falsifies the plea of the objectors. Whether the testator had lost testamentary capacity otherwise, at the time of execution of the will, is another question. The document falsifies the plea of the objectors. Whether the testator had lost testamentary capacity otherwise, at the time of execution of the will, is another question. But it can safely be concluded that he did not suffer from any physical and mental incapacity at the time of execution of Ext. 6. 16. We have already seen the will. Satyendranath had read upto standard VIII or IX. He wrote the will in English. The mistakes in spelling, grammer and composition lend assurance to the authenticity of the will. The testator goes into minute details and of his many relations, he selects a few as the recipients of his bounty He does not forget his assistant. He gets rupees one thousand. He gives Usha a life estate only. He remembers Hemendra, one of the objectors and specifically bequeathed the 'Puja articles' for use during Durga Puja. Family worship is to continue in the agnatic line. Tables, utensils, chairs, radios etc. ate bequeathed to Bulu and Bulu's children. The manner of disposition, the details indicate a discerning mind a mind which was alert and capable. The testator even prefaces his will saying with my best knowledge and good arid sound mind I am making this will written in my own hand-writing. As observed by their Lordships of the' Privy Council in AIR 1945 174 (Privy Council) : It was all along a common ground that the was unwell when she executed the will but that is a long way from saying that she had no testamentary capacity. The testator of a will does not have to be found-in-perfect state of health to have his will declared valid. In our opinion, Satyendranath understood the nature of the act and its effects; understood the extent of the property of which, he was disposing was able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which he should give effect. 17. It has been urged by the counsel for the objectors that the will was vitiated by undue influence. Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act enacts: A will or any part of a will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity as takes away the free agency of the testator, is "void". It has been urged by the counsel for the objectors that the will was vitiated by undue influence. Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act enacts: A will or any part of a will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity as takes away the free agency of the testator, is "void". Illustration (vii) to the section is very instructive and reads as follows: A being in such a state of health as to be capable of exercising his own judgment and volition, Buses urgent intercession and persuasion with him to induce him to make a will of a certain purport A, in consequence of the interaction 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. It is elementary law that it is not every influence which is brought to bear on a testator that can be characterised as "undue", It is open to a person to plead his case before the testator and to persuade him to make a disposition in his favour and if the testator retains his mental capacity, and there is no element of fraud or coercion it has often been observed that undue influence may in the last analysis be brought under one or the other of these two categories the will cannot be attacked on the ground of undue influence, See Naresh Charan Das Gupta Vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta The classic observation of lord Penzance in Hall v. Hall (1868) 1 P & D 481, may here be recalled. But an influences are hot unlawful. Persuasion, appeals to the affections or ties or kindred, to a sentiment of gratitude for past services, or pity for future destitution or the like these are all legitimate and may be fairly pressed on a testator. On the other hand, pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to over power the volition without convincing, the judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made. On the other hand, pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to over power the volition without convincing, the judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made. Importunity or threats, such as the, testator has the courage to resist, moral command asserted and yielded to for the sake of peace and quiet, or of escaping from distress of mind or social discomfort, these, if carried to a cegree in which the free play of the testator's judgment, discretion, or wishes is over borne, will constitute undue influence, though no force is either used or threatened. In a word, a testator may be led, but not driven; and his will must be the offspring of his own volition, and not the record of some one else's. 18. Undue influence, in order to invalidate a will, must amount to coarcion or fraud. Its existance must be established as a fact and it must also appear that it was actually exercised on the testator. The burden of proving undue influence is not discharged, by merely establishing that a person has the power on duly to over bear the will of the testator. It must be shown that in the particular case the power was exercised, and that it was by means of the exercise of that power that the will was obtained. See AIR 1949 272 (Privy Council) . In our opinion, the objectors have miserably failed to discharge the burden which lay heavily on them and the argument that die will was vitiated by undue influence is devoid of any substance. 19. Shri Das has further urged that the will was invalid, for want of attestation as contemplated by law. P.W. 4 is the attestor. He deposed that by the time he reached the place. Satyendranath had written out a few lines and after finishing the same he read out and signed in his presence at, two places and thereafter handed over the paper to him for attestation and he attested. Thereafter, Satyendra gave the will to Banabehari and he attested. It is argued that Gopalhari is a brother of Usha and, so is interested. The other attestor, Banabehari is an independent person; adverse inference is available to be drawn from his non-examination. It has also been urged that the affidavit filed by Usha disproves attestation. Thereafter, Satyendra gave the will to Banabehari and he attested. It is argued that Gopalhari is a brother of Usha and, so is interested. The other attestor, Banabehari is an independent person; adverse inference is available to be drawn from his non-examination. It has also been urged that the affidavit filed by Usha disproves attestation. We have gone through the affidavit and the evidence of P.W. 4. The statement in the affidavit has been due to careless drafting, whosoever drafted it. We hold P.W. 4 to be a trust-worthy witness and in the circumstances, a natural witness and nothing in his evidence has stirred any doubt or suspicion in our mind. 20. By attestation is meant the signing of a document to signify that the attestor is a witness to the execution of the document; and by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, attesting witness is one who signs the document:in, the presence of the executant after seeing the execution of the document or after receiving a personal acknowledgement from the excutant as regards the execution of the document See Benichand v. Kamla Kunwar AIR 1977 S.C. 83. In our view, the evidence clearly establish due attestation as required by law. Another argument which has been faintly urged, is that the document was not registered though the testator lived for more than 20 days after execution. The mere fact that a will, is not registered is not such a circumstance as must ipso facto tell against the genuineness of the will Non-registration may be due to dislike for a publicity of the arrangement that one makes. So, this cannot be a suspicious circumstance to vitiate the will. 21. Lastly, it has been strenuously urged that dispositions are unnatural. Brothets and near relations have been excluded from the dispositions and this a suspicious feature. The answer is in Motibai v. Jamsetjee AIR 1924 P.C. 28 , where it was observed: A man may act foolishly and even heartlessly if he acts with full comprehension of what he is doing the Court will not interfere with the exercise of his volition. and in Surendra Pal and Others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and Another where it was said: It is not for us to fathom the motivations of a man. His actions and reactions are unpredictable as they depend upon so many circumstances. and in Surendra Pal and Others Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and Another where it was said: It is not for us to fathom the motivations of a man. His actions and reactions are unpredictable as they depend upon so many circumstances. There is, however, always some dominant and impelling circumstance which motivates a man's action though in some cases even a trivial and trifling cause impels him to act in a particular way which a majority of others may not do. At times psychological factors and the frame of mind in which he is, may determine his action. 22. In the result, we negative an the contentions raised by the Appellants and uphold the grant of probate and dismiss this appeal with costs. B.K. Behera, J. 23. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed