JUDGMENT : - This suit has been filed by Smt. Leela Karwal, widow, of Prof. G.D. Karwal, for grant of Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed directed to the house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, and nothing else. 2. The pedigree which will be relevant for the decision of the suit is as under: - 3. Prof. G.D. Karwal died on 24th December, 1969. Smt. Lajwanti, the first wife of Prof. G.D. Karwal, died in 1926. Thereafter, Prof. G.D. Karwal married Smt. Leela Karwal, who was real younger sister of Smt. Lajwanti. From the first wife, there are five children; two sons and three daughters, mentioned above, and from the second wife, one married daughter Smt. Prem Luther. The suit has been flied on the allegations that Prof. G.D. Karwal had executed a holograph will at Allahabad, which was duly attested by Prof. P.C. Jain and his wife Smt. Shanti Jain. It has been further alleged that the deceased had himself constructed the house in question out of his personal money and that he had a right to dispose of the said property by means of the will. In the plaint, which was originally filed, no date of the will had been mentioned. In the rejoinder affidavit of Smt. Leela Karwal, for the first time, it was stated that the will was executed on the Rakshabandhan day in the year 1969 in his own handwriting. 4. When the notices were issued to the next of the kins, caveats were filed by Col. J.D. Karwal, the eldest son of the first wife of Prof. G.D. Karwal, and Km. Janak Karwal, the youngest unmarried daughter of the first wife of Prof. Karwal. Col. J.D. Karwal as well as Km. Janak Karwal have, inter alia, objected to the grant of the letters of administration on the ground that, in fact, no will had been executed by Prof. Karwal. It was stated that the application for the grant of a succession certificate, which had been filed earlier, no mention had been made of the alleged will which has now been set up by Smt. Leela Karwal. Karwal. It was stated that the application for the grant of a succession certificate, which had been filed earlier, no mention had been made of the alleged will which has now been set up by Smt. Leela Karwal. It has been further alleged that even in the mutation proceedings before the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, the will was not set up by Smt. Leela Karwal in order to get her name mutated in respect of house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the house in dispute). 5. On the pleadings of the parties, however, the following six issues were framed on 15th Feb., 1983: - 1. Whether the document alleged to be executed on Rakshabandhan day of 1969 by late Prof. G.D. Karwal and alleged to be his last will is a document of a testamentary nature ? 2. Whether the alleged document executed by Prof. G.D. Karwal was duly executed ? 3. Whether the present petition for grant of letters of administration filed after a lapse of 13 years of the death of Prof. G.D. Karwal is entertainable in law ? 4. Whether the petition is maintainable in regard to house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, the title of which is alleged to be in dispute ? 5. Whether the present petition is maintainable in law or not in view of the pendency of suit No. 168 of 1982 filed in respect of nerve No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad? 6. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled? 6. Besides the documentary evidence on the record, on behalf of the plaintiff Smt. Leela Karwal, statement of Smt. Leela Karwal was recorded as P. W. 1 and statement of Prakash Chandra Jain, who was the attesting witness, was recorded on her behalf as P. W. 2. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff. Col. J.D. Karwal, however, entered in the witness box. His evidence was recorded as R. W. 1. One more witness was produced by the defendants, namely, Ashok Singh Chaudhan (R. W. 2). 7. Before considering the other issues framed in the case, I will consider Issue No. 2, which is the most important issue in the suit, as the question to be decided is whether the alleged document filed by Smt. Leela Karwal alleged to be the will of Prof. G. D. Karwal was a duly executed will. 8. 7. Before considering the other issues framed in the case, I will consider Issue No. 2, which is the most important issue in the suit, as the question to be decided is whether the alleged document filed by Smt. Leela Karwal alleged to be the will of Prof. G. D. Karwal was a duly executed will. 8. At the outset, it may be stated that the alleged will does not bear any date. It also does not bear any signature, either at the top or on any other portion of the will, which is in one page written on both sides. The first para of the alleged will is as under : "I Gurudutt Karwal, son of Shri Debi Chand retired Professor, University of Allahabad, Allahabad, resident of 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad-2 (U. P.) declare this to my will." 9. The contention of the petitioner is that when Prof. Karwal wrote "I Gurudutt Karwal" in his own handwriting, it amounted to a signature in the eye of law. It is further admitted that this will is not a registered will. 10. P. W. 2, Prakash Chand Jain, the attesting witness, has stated that the had asked Prof. Karwal that the will had not been signed at the bottom then Prof. Karwal told him that he had already signed on the top and it was not necessary for him to sign on the bottom. Prof. Karwal further said that his signature was in the first line of the will after the word I on the basis of this statement of P.C. Jain (P. W. 2), who is the attesting witness, it has been alleged that the attesting witness having received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature on the will, the will should be deemed to have been properly executed. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on S.63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.63 is quoted below : "63. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance on S.63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.63 is quoted below : "63. Execution of unprivileged wills: - Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or 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 : - (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (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." 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that under sub-cl. (a) of S.63 of the Act, the testator Prof. G.D. Karwal had signed the will and that the signature was so placed that it does appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will under sub-cl. (b) and since the attesting witness had seen the testator sign, as required by sub-cl. (c), the will was duly proved. In the alternative, it has been urged that, in any case, under sub-cl.(c) of S.63 of the Act, since the attesting witnesses had received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature on the will, the will should be deemed to have been validly executed in the eye of law. 13. (c), the will was duly proved. In the alternative, it has been urged that, in any case, under sub-cl.(c) of S.63 of the Act, since the attesting witnesses had received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature on the will, the will should be deemed to have been validly executed in the eye of law. 13. Before considering the submissions made by the plaintiff, it is necessary for me to record a finding on the question as to whether the alleged will was in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal or not. 14. Smt. Leela Karwal (P. W. 1) who is the widow of Prof. G.D. Karwal, has stated that she recognises the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal, it is in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) has also stated that he had seen the will (Ext. P-5) and that the said will is in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. Smt. Leela Karwal (P. W. 1) is the widow of Prof. G.D. Karwal, the deceased. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) was a lecturer in Economics in the University of Allahabad in the year 1939. His relations with Prof. G.D. Karwal were very cordial and since he was working in the same department, I am inclined to believe his statement that Ext. P-5 is in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal Col. J.D. Karwal (R. W. 1) has stated that Ext. P-5 is not in the handwriting of his father Prof. G.D. Karwal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff did not very seriously challenge the fact that Ext. P-5 was written in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. The diary (Ext. R-12) of Prof. G.D. Karwal is also in the record. On a perusal of the will (Ext. P-5) and the diary (Ext. R-12), it is apparent that the Ext. P-5 had been written in he handwriting of Prof. G.D. Kadwal. I, accordingly, find that Ext. P-5 is written in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. 15. I will now consider the first submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. S.63 of the Act provides that every testator shall execute his will according to the rules mentioned in sub-cls.(a), (b) and (c). G.D. Kadwal. I, accordingly, find that Ext. P-5 is written in the handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. 15. I will now consider the first submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. S.63 of the Act provides that every testator shall execute his will according to the rules mentioned in sub-cls.(a), (b) and (c). Sub-cl.(a) required that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence or by his direction. It is not the plaintiffs case that the will has been signed by some other person in the presence of the testator or by his direction. The question, therefore, which arises is whether the testator had signed the will or had affixed his mark to the will. The significant words in sub-cl.(a) are to the will. It clearly contemplates that a will must be in existence before the testator has to sign or affix his mark. It does not contemplate of a case where the testator will first sign and affix his mark and, thereafter, write a will. The intention of the Legislature in enacting sub-cl.(a) is that after a will has been written, it should be authenticated by the signature or the mark of the testator so that legal effect could be given to the intention of the testator. Mere writing a name on a document cannot amount to signing the said document unless there is an intention that by writing the said name, the person wants to authenticate the said document. It is because of this that the Legislature provided that the signature or the mark has to be to the will. After the will has been written, either in the own handwriting or by some other mechanical process, the testator has to sign or affix his mark. It is not necessary that the signature or the mark should be only at the bottom of the will. It may be found on any part of the will, but such a signature or mark should indicate that the testator had intentionally authenticated the said writing or material to be his will. In the instant case, Ext. P-5 starts by the expression "I, Guru Datt Karwal" and, thereafter, the rest of the contents of the document has been written in the own handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. In the instant case, Ext. P-5 starts by the expression "I, Guru Datt Karwal" and, thereafter, the rest of the contents of the document has been written in the own handwriting of Prof. G.D. Karwal. When the words "I, Guru Datt Karwal" were written by Prof. G.D. Karwal, the other portions of the document were not in existence. In effect, the terms and conditions of the will were not there. Unless, as I have already indicated above, the will had been written the question of signing or putting up the mark does not arise. In the circumstances, merely by Prof. G.D. Karwals writing on Ext. P-5, "I, Guru Datt Karwal", it cannot be said that Prof. G.D. Karwal had put his signatures or mark to the will. 16. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition the word signature has been defined as follows : "The name (or special mark) of a person written with his or her own hand as an authentication of some document or writing." 17. In Websters International Dictionary the definition of the word signature is in the following terms: - "The name of any person written with his own hand, employed to signify that the writing which precedes accords with his wishes or intention." 18. In Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 5, Fourth Edition, it has been stated that a signature is the writing or otherwise affixing a persons name, or a mark to represent his name, by himself or by his authority with the intention of authenticating a document as being that of, or as binding on, the person whose name or mark is so written or affixed. 19. Earl Jowitt also in his Dictionary of English Law, Second Edn., has stated that a person is said to have put his signature if "a person signs a document when he writes or marks something on it in taken of his intention to be bound by its contents". 20. Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume LXXX also relying upon U. S. Fidelity etc. Co. v. Seigmann, 91 N.W. 473, 474, 87 Minn. 175, it has been stated "signing consists both of the act of writing a persons name and the intention in doing this to execute (or) authenticate". 21. From the above definitions it is apparent that mere writing by a person of his name does not amount to a signature. Co. v. Seigmann, 91 N.W. 473, 474, 87 Minn. 175, it has been stated "signing consists both of the act of writing a persons name and the intention in doing this to execute (or) authenticate". 21. From the above definitions it is apparent that mere writing by a person of his name does not amount to a signature. The intention of a person writing his name should be to authenticate the contents of some document which precedes the writing on the name. Nothing can be authenticated unless it has already been written. In the circumstances the mere writing of the name in the very beginning without an intention of authenticating the said document or in the absence of any word preceding the said writing of the name, it cannot be called, in my opinion, a signature in the eye of law. 22. In Dahyabhai Mansukhram Shah v. Kanaiyalal Maganlal, AIR 1930 Bom 441, it was held that even if the will is a holograph, viz. written by the own hand of a person, it could not be deemed to be a will unless there were signatures on the said document. It could only amount to a draft will. In this case the testator had at the top of the document written "I Shah Vrijvallavdas Umedram ......... make this will as follows." There was no signature on any part of the document, but no doubt it was a holograph. In the instant case also the name of the testator Guru Dutt Karwal has been written at the top but there is found no signature at all in any part of the document nor even on the corrections made in the said document. Even the initials of Professor G.D. Karwal are not present in the will. In the circumstances, the principle laid down in the case of Dahyabhai (supra) applies to the present case and the will could only be treated a draft will and nothing more. 23. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a few cases in support of his submissions. The first case which has been relied upon is Sabitri Thakurain v. F.A. Savi, (1915) 19 Cal WN 1297 : (AIR 1916 Cal 630 (2) ). In this case the will was a holograph will which was wholly in the handwriting of the deceased and the signatures of the testator were found on each page. The first case which has been relied upon is Sabitri Thakurain v. F.A. Savi, (1915) 19 Cal WN 1297 : (AIR 1916 Cal 630 (2) ). In this case the will was a holograph will which was wholly in the handwriting of the deceased and the signatures of the testator were found on each page. On the first page, however, the signatures were found on the top left hand corner "W.M. Thakur-By my own pen". Similar signatures were found on all other pages. The only question was whether the signatures put at the top left hand corner would amount the signatures on the will. On the facts and circumstances of that case it was held that the signatures of the testator were made with an intention to make the document an effective one. In the instant case there are no signatures of the testator at all, neither in the margin nor on any other part of the will. Them is no signature on the back of the page on which the will had been written. In the circumstances the case of Sabitri Thakurain (supra) is clearly distinguishable. 24. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is A.N. Chatterjee v. K.N. Chatterjee, (1899) ILR 27 Cal 169. This case related to the will of one Jadab Chandra Chatterjee. The signatures of the testator were found on the right hand corner of the will. The will was registered and the testator signed his name on the back before the Sub-Registrar and in the presence of one witness. It was in these circumstances that the Calcutta High Court held that it was perfectly clear that the testator wrote his will and that his signature was at the commencement when the witness signed and he admitted to several of the witnesses that this was his last will and testament. It was further held that the registration of the will before the Registrar is a sufficient acknowledgment of the testators signatures. The fact that there was a signature of the testator on the will as well as the fact that testator signed before the Sub-Registrar were the factors which were taken by the court into consideration holding the will to be valid. The fact that there was a signature of the testator on the will as well as the fact that testator signed before the Sub-Registrar were the factors which were taken by the court into consideration holding the will to be valid. The principle laid down in this case also, in my opinion, does not advance the case of the plaintiff as in this case the will is not a registered document. There is nothing to indicate that the testator had signed the will on any part of it or initialled the same. 25. The next case on which reliance has been placed is in the goods of R. Porthouse, (1897) ILR 24 Cal 784. This case was decided in chambers. There was no opposition to the Will. The property was given to the wife and the wife was appointed the executrix. The court was further satisfied in regard to the genuineness of the document. The question whether the writing of the name of R. Porthouse would amount to signatures was not considered by the court at all and hence no principle had been evolved in this case on the basis of which reliance can be placed by the plaintiff. In my opinion, therefore, this case also does not help the plaintiff. 26-27. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on In re Mahabir Singh, AIR 1963 Punj 66. In this case also at three places in the will be testator ad signed his own name. It was in these circumstances that the Punjab High Court took the view that the will was duly executed. In my opinion, this decision is on its own facts. The other case which has been relied upon by the learned counsel is Ajit Chandra Majumdar v. Akhil Chandra Majumdar AIR 1960 Cal 551 . In this case the whole of the will was written in the handwriting of the testator in English. The question whether the testator put his signature on the holograph will or not was not in dispute. It appears that the signatures of the testator were there. In fact, it has been further stated in that case that the corrections were made in the will on 8th Aug., 1944 and the date and initials of the testator appear on those corrections. It appears that the signatures of the testator were there. In fact, it has been further stated in that case that the corrections were made in the will on 8th Aug., 1944 and the date and initials of the testator appear on those corrections. It was consequently held that the corrections indicate that the testator had not only approved the draft and executed the will but was also intelligently following the course of events subsequent to the will. As I have already held above in the instant case there are no initials on the will much less a signature. There is no other evidence to indicate that the will was treated to be a will duly executed in the eye of law. Ajit Chandras case (supra), in my opinion, also does not help the plaintiff. 28. In view of the above, in my opinion, since no signatures are found of the testator on the will, the will in question was only a draft will. 29. In any case, even if for the sake of argument, it is taken that "I, Guru Datt Karwal" are taken to be the signature of the testator, then too, in my opinion, the will has not been duly executed and it only remained a draft will, as attestation of the will has not been established. 30. The attesting witnesses are Prof. P.C. Jain and his wife Smt. Shanti Jain, J.C. Jain entered the witness box. Mrs. Shanti Jain, though named as a witness in the list of witnesses, has not been produced. 31. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) in examination-in-chief stated that after Prof. Karwal wrote the will he gave the will for the signatures of P.C. Jain and his wife. He further stated: "Then I wrote the words "witnesses on both the sides of the page on which will was written and also put my signature on both the sides. I passed on my pen to my wife Smt. Shanti Jain who also signed on the same both the pages on which the will was written." 32. In cross-examination, however, it was stated by P. W. 2 as under : "Prof. Karwal wrote both sides of the page on which the will had been written with the same pen and ink. I signed with the same pen and ink. My wife also signed with the same pen and ink." 33. In cross-examination, however, it was stated by P. W. 2 as under : "Prof. Karwal wrote both sides of the page on which the will had been written with the same pen and ink. I signed with the same pen and ink. My wife also signed with the same pen and ink." 33. The statement made by P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) is self-contradictory. In examination-in-chief, he stated that he had signed with his own pen, in cross-examination, he said that it was with the pen and ink of Prof. Karwal. Contradictory statement clearly shows that the witness is not telling the truth and I am not prepared to believe this part of the statement of P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) that he and his wife signed as attesting witnesses. The fact, that no date was put by P.C. Jain and his wife at the bottom of the signatures, particularly when Prof. P.C. Jain has such long experience in education and practical life, also gives support to my finding that the will was not attested. 34. On a bare look of the original will, it is apparent that the writing of Guru Datt Karwal is much older and a different pen and ink have been used. The word witnesses on both the pages and the signatures of P.C. Jain and Mrs. Shanti Jain appear to be very recent and the ink used by the attesting witnesses is entirely different from that used by the testator. 35. There is one more serious contradiction. In Ext. R-11, the joint affidavit of P.C. Jain and Smt. Shanti Jain, in para 11, it has been stated that both the deponents saw the testator writing his name and affixing his stamp to the said will. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) in cross-examination categorically stated that Professor G.D. Karwal had not affixed any stamp on this will. I cannot say whether he has a stamp or not. 36. In view of the above mentioned contradictions, I am not prepared to believe that P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) and Smt. Shanti Jain, the two attesting witnesses, attested the will and that they were present on the alleged date on which the will was written. It has come in evidence that the relations between the parties became strained during the end of 1980 and thereafter. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) has stated that Mrs. It has come in evidence that the relations between the parties became strained during the end of 1980 and thereafter. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) has stated that Mrs. Leela Karwal always treated him like his son and he also treated her more than his mother. In view of the intimate relations between P.C. Jain and Smt. Leela Karwal, it appears that the attesting witnesses, though they put signatures on the will, they were put subsequently after the dispute arose in the family in order to help Smt. Leela Karwal and not on the date when the will is alleged to have been written by Prof. G.D. Karwal because if the will was really sought to be executed by Prof. G.D. Karwal, he, by virtue of his experience in the Government service and University service, would have definitely signed the will to authenticate his writing. The fact, that no initials were made on the corrections in the will, also suggests that Prof. G.D. Karwal did not want to give finality to the draft prepared by him. 37. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I, consequently, find that the attesting witnesses were not present on the day when the draft will (Ext. P-5) was written by Prof. G.D. Karwal. The will was, consequently, not duly attested and it cannot be called a legal declaration of the testator with respect to his property which he desired to be given effect to after his death. 38. The alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the basis of S.63 (c) of the Act, that one of the attesting witnesses, namely, P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) had received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of the signature and, as such, the will should be held to be duly executed, is also devoid of substance. As I have already held that the attesting witnesses were not present at the time when Ext. P-5 was written by Prof. G.D. Karwal, consequently, the question of his acknowledging the signatures to P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) does not arise. 39. There are many circumstances which emerge from the facts on record, which are further pointer to the conclusion reached by me that the theory, that the will was duly executed by Prof. G.D. Karwal is not believable. 40. Firstly, in Ext. 39. There are many circumstances which emerge from the facts on record, which are further pointer to the conclusion reached by me that the theory, that the will was duly executed by Prof. G.D. Karwal is not believable. 40. Firstly, in Ext. P-14, letter dated 6th April, 1982, written by the plaintiff herself to Col. J.D. Karwal, in para 5, it has been stated by her that in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Jain and many others, the original will executed by her husband was given to Col. J.D. Karwal, he got the Photo made of the will and gave back one page of fine will back to her. Smt. Leela Karwal (P. W. 1) who was examined in this court, has stated "I asked Prof. P.C. Jain to get a photostat copy made out of the will and give to Jogendra Datt Viz. Col. J.D. Karwal. P.C. Jain (P. W. 2) has also stated as under : "I then asked Smt. Leela Karwal "Amma Ji" to bring out the will of Professor G.D. Karwal. The will was shown to every person who was present there. At that time, Col. J.D. Karwal wanted a copy of the said will. Mrs. Leela Karwal did not trust him. She gave the will to me and asked me to go with Col. Karwal for getting a photo made of the Will. Ext. P-6 is the photo copy of the Will. One photo copy of the will was given to Col. J.D. Karwal and the other copy along with the original was given to Smt. Leela Karwal." 41. There is a clear contradiction between Ext. R-14 and the oral statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in regard to the handing over of the original Will. This indicates that the theory of the will has been, subsequently, set up. 42. Secondly, a very important circumstance which creates suspicion in my mind in regard to the execution of the will is that all along the date of the will was not disclosed by the plaintiff. If the will had been executed on a Particular date, there was no reason why the date was not mentioned at the earliest opportunity. Ext. 42. Secondly, a very important circumstance which creates suspicion in my mind in regard to the execution of the will is that all along the date of the will was not disclosed by the plaintiff. If the will had been executed on a Particular date, there was no reason why the date was not mentioned at the earliest opportunity. Ext. R-11 is a joint affidavit of Prakash Chandra Jain and Smt. Shanti Jain in mutation Appeal No. 41 of 1982, Smt. Leela Karwal v. Nagar Mahapalika in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Allahabad. In this joint affidavit in para 10 it was stated that Professor G.D. Karwal by his own pen in his own handwriting wrote out the will and a photostat copy of the will was also filed along with the affidavit but it is surprising that no averment was made in the affidavit as to when the will was executed though in para 14 it was stated that several months after execution of the will Professor G.D. Karwal died on 24th Dec., 1969. Ext. P-14 is the letter written by the plaintiff Smt. Leela Karwal to her step-son J.D. Karwal. In this letter also it was stated that Professor G.D. Karwal had executed a will in the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Jain and many others but no date of the will was disclosed. The present petition for the grant of probate which has given rise to the present suit was filed in this Court on 24th Sept., 1982. In para 4 of this petition it has been stated that Professor G.D. Karwal had executed a complete holograph will at Allahabad which was duly attested by the two attesting witnesses. No date was given on the will. Even in this petition neither any date was given as to when it was duly attested. In para 4 of the objection filed by Km. Janak Karwal an objection was taken to the effect that no will was executed or written by late Professor G.D. Karwal. The execution, attestation, genuineness, validity and effectiveness of the alleged unregistered will set up by the plaintiff were denied. Smt, Leela Karwal filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 11th Feb., 1983. In para 4 of the objection filed by Km. Janak Karwal an objection was taken to the effect that no will was executed or written by late Professor G.D. Karwal. The execution, attestation, genuineness, validity and effectiveness of the alleged unregistered will set up by the plaintiff were denied. Smt, Leela Karwal filed a rejoinder affidavit dated 11th Feb., 1983. In this rejoinder affidavit also no date of the execution of the will was given but in para 14 it was stated that the will was executed on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan day in the year 1969. 43. P. W. 1 Smt. Leela Karwal in her oral statement stated that the will was executed on Raksha Bandhan day and most probably it was 27th or 28th Aug., 1969. Similarly, P. W. 2 P.C, Jain also stated that the will was executed on Raksha Bandhan day in the year 1969. The fact that no date of execution of the will was disclosed initially coupled with the fact that no date is found under the signatures of the attesting witnesses, it creates a suspicion in my mind that the will has been set up as an afterthought. The alleged will only remained a draft will and was not executed by Professor G.D. Karwal as required by law. 44. The correspondence between the children of Professor G.D. Karwal with Smt. Leela Karwal is the third circumstance which creates a suspicion in my mind in regard to the execution of the will. 45. Admittedly Professor G.D. Karwal died on 24th Dec., 1969. The Thirteenth Day ceremony took Place in the second week of Jan., 1970 Ext. P-7 is a letter dated 13th Feb., 1970 written by Col. J.D. Karwal to the Allahabad Corporation, Allahabad informing the Corporation that Professor G.D. Karwal had died on 24th Dec., 1969 and that the name of Smt. Leela Karwal may be mutated as owner and occupier of the said house in place of Professor Karwal. Ext. P-8 is again a letter dated 16th February, 1970 from J.D. Karwal to the Allahabad Corporation enclosing the death certificate of Professor G.D. Karwal and a request was made that the name of Smt. Leela Karwal be mutated as owner and occupier of the house in question. Great reliance had been placed on these two letters and it has been alleged that in fact it is an admission of Col. Great reliance had been placed on these two letters and it has been alleged that in fact it is an admission of Col. J.D. Karwal in regard to the ownership of Smt. Leela Karwal. Col. J.D. Karwal appeared as a witness in this Court as R. W. 1. He has explained that he wrote these letters not with an intention that Smt. Leela Karwal became an absolute owner and occupier of house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad because he was aware that the proceedings in mutation do not confer title to the property. Ext. P-7 and Ext. P-8 were written only by J.D. Karwal. There are four other heirs from the first wife of Professor Karwal. There is no admission from their side. As such Exts. P-7 and P-8 cannot possibly be treated as admission of the ownership of Smt. Leela Karwal. In any case so far as this suit is concerned, there is no admission in Ext. P-7 and Ext. P-8 to the effect that a will had been executed by Professor Karwal. 46. Ext. P-9 is a letter dated 19th Feb., 1970 written by J.D. Karwal to Smt. Leela Karwal. The material words in this letter are : 47. This letter was written immediately after the death of Professor G.D. Karwal. In case the will had been written and a photostat copy of the will had been given to J.D. Karwal as alleged by the plaintiff then no question arose of J.D. Karwals writing that he will send a document after getting it signed by all the heirs. This itself indicates that there was no will in existence at that time. 48. Ext. P-20 is an important letter written by Shakuntala Sahdeo, one of the daughters of Professor G.D. Karwal on 30th May, 1970 addressed to the Up-Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. In this letter she has stated that Smt. Leela Karwal has got a right to reside in the house and to let it out on rent only during her lifetime. Thereafter her brothers J.D. Karwal and R.D. Karwal would be the owners of the same. She further wrote that she has come to know that her father had left a draft will and if the draft will is found, then the decision may be taken according to the draft will. Shakuntala Sahdeo has not contested the suit. Thereafter her brothers J.D. Karwal and R.D. Karwal would be the owners of the same. She further wrote that she has come to know that her father had left a draft will and if the draft will is found, then the decision may be taken according to the draft will. Shakuntala Sahdeo has not contested the suit. She is an independent person and a letter written immediately after the fathers death is clearly indicative of the fact that no will had been left by Professor Karwal but only a draft will was left as she had heard about it. In any case the alleged will was not shown to her. 49. Ext. R-15 is a letter from another daughter of professor Karwal from the first wife namely, Smt. Sheila Prakash addressed to the Up-Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. In this letter also it has been stated that it is a desire that Smt. Leela Karwal may reside in the house in dispute during her lifetime but after her death her two brothers, namely, J.D. Karwal and R.D. Karwal and her unmarried sister Km. Janak Karwal be mutated as heirs. 50. All the above documents were written immediately after the death of Professor G.D. Karwal. The relations between the step-mother and the children were absolutely cordial. The correspondence took place in the normal course of events, and from this correspondance it is apparent that in case the will was in existence it was not necessary for the children of Professor Karwal to write letters to their step-mother or to the Nagar Mahapalika contrary to the terms of the will. For the first time, however, the will has seen the light of the day after 13 years when a joint affidavit was filed by Professor P.C. Jain and Smt. Shanti Jain in the mutation appeal arising out of order of the Nagar Mahapaiika, consequently it does create a suspicion in my mind that there was only a draft will in existence and there was no valid will in the eye of law. 51. In connection with this property proceedings took place under the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, No. 33 of 1976. Initially the ceiling return was filed by Smt. Leela Karwal herself. By a notice dated 30th June, 1980 the ceiling authority declared 537.48 square meters of land in excess of the ceiling limits. 51. In connection with this property proceedings took place under the U. P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, No. 33 of 1976. Initially the ceiling return was filed by Smt. Leela Karwal herself. By a notice dated 30th June, 1980 the ceiling authority declared 537.48 square meters of land in excess of the ceiling limits. In reply to this notice Ext. R-37, a letter dated 10th Aug., 1980 was written jointly by the Plaintiff Smt. Leela Karwal and J.D.Karwal. In this letter it was categorically stated that Professor Karwal died on 24th Dec., 1969 leaving behind two sons, one widow and four daughters and that all these were entitled to the shares in the property. No mention was here made in regard to the will. By virtue of this letter, therefore, it was prayed that no surplus land in excess of the ceiling can be declared in respect of house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad. D.W. 2, Ashok Singh Chauhan was produced to prove this letter. He has stated that he typed out the letter at Allahabad. Smt. Leela Karwal signed the letter in his presence and thereafter Col. J.D. Karwal signed the same. P. W.1 Smt. Leela Karwal has denied her signature on the said letter. I am not inclined to believe the statement of P. W.1 Smt. Leela Karwal on this question. I believe D. W.2 Ashok Singh Chauhan who had seen Smt. Leela Karwal signing the letter in his presence. Even otherwise the signature on this Ext. R-37 tallies with other signatures of Smt. Leela Karwal on this record and consequently I find that Smt. Leela Karwal had also signed Ex. R-37. From this fifth circumstance it is apparent that till 10th Aug., 1980 Smt. Leela Karwal was treating the property 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad as belonging to all we heirs of Professor G.D. Karwal. In case, the will was in existence, there was no reason why Smt. Leela Karwal would have accepted the rights of other heirs in the property in dispute. This also indicates that no will was left by Professor G.D. Karwal. 52. The sixth circumstance which creates suspicion in my mind is the fact that Smt. Leela Karwal herself moved an application for grant of succession certificate in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad. The application is Ext. R-4 on record. This also indicates that no will was left by Professor G.D. Karwal. 52. The sixth circumstance which creates suspicion in my mind is the fact that Smt. Leela Karwal herself moved an application for grant of succession certificate in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad. The application is Ext. R-4 on record. In this application the succession had been sought not on the basis of the will but as a Hindu widow and legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, J.D. Karwal and R.D. Karwal filed objections to this succession certificate and in this a categorical objection was filed (Ext. R-20) wherein it was stated that Prof. Karwal died intestate on 24th Dec., 1969, and Smt. Leela Karwal can only file the petition in respect of her own share. In spite of this objection, Smt. Leela Karwal did not produce the will before the Civil Judge, Allahabad. Col. J.D. Karwal also moved an application for succession certificate, Ext. R-21, ultimately, a succession certificate was granted to Smt. Leela Karwal only in respect of 2/7th share consisting of her share and the share of her daughter Prem Luther. The succession certificate (Ext. R-22) dated 8-4-1978 is on record. 53. As stated above, if the will was in existence, there was no reason why this fact was not disclosed, till 1980, more than eleven years after the date when the will was alleged to have been executed. 54. It has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the defendants that since the ages of Prof. G.D. Karwal and Km. Janak Karwal have not been properly recorded in Ext. P-5, it is an important circumstance to show that the will was not a genuine document. On this question, learned counsel for the defendants in his statement dated 2nd May, 1983, has admitted before me that in the University records, the date of birth of Km. Janak Karwal is given as 16th Dec. 1930, and the date of birth of Prof. G.D. Karwal is given as 1st May, 1892. If these dates are considered, then in Aug., 1969, Prof. G.D. Karwal would be about 76 years and Km. Janak Karwal would be about 39 years. So far as the age of Prof. G.D. Karwal is concerned, it has been correctly recorded as the will is alleged to have been written in Aug., 1969. If these dates are considered, then in Aug., 1969, Prof. G.D. Karwal would be about 76 years and Km. Janak Karwal would be about 39 years. So far as the age of Prof. G.D. Karwal is concerned, it has been correctly recorded as the will is alleged to have been written in Aug., 1969. There is a slight difference in recording of the age of Km. Janak Karwal, but, in my opinion, this is not such a circumstance which could throw doubt on the writing by Prof. G.D. Karwal of Ext. P-5. 55. In view of the above circumstances, in my opinion, Professor G.D. Karwal only made out a draft will, he did not sign on the said will and he did not intend that the said draft will should be treated as a will declaring his intention with respect to his properties to be carried into effect after his death. I, accordingly, answer Issue No. 2 against the plaintiff. I find that the alleged document executed by Professor G.D. Karwal was not duly executed. Issue No. 1. 56. Section 2 (h) of the Act defines the word Will. It means the legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. 57. I have already held under issue No. 2 that the document alleged to have been executed on the Rakshabandhan day of 1969 by late Prof. G.D. Karwal was not duly executed by him and it is not a valid will. Since the document is not a legal declaration of the intention of the testator, the document cannot be termed as a document of testamentary nature. In the circumstances, the issue is decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3. 58. There is no limitation prescribed for filing a petition for grant of letters of administration. The delay in filing the petition is a matter to be considered while adjudicating upon the validity of the will in respect of which the grant of letters of administration has been sought. But the mere fact, that a petition is filed after 13 years, cannot be a ground for holding it to be not maintainable in law. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the petition is entertainable in law and the issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 4. 59. But the mere fact, that a petition is filed after 13 years, cannot be a ground for holding it to be not maintainable in law. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the petition is entertainable in law and the issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 4. 59. The argument in regard to this issue is that since there is nothing to be administered in regard to house No. 464, Mumfordganj, Allahabad, therefore the petition for the grant of letters of administration is not maintainable in law. Since I have taken the view that there was no valid will executed in favour of the plaintiff, it is not necessary for me to consider the question as to whether it would be a proper exercise of discretion to grant the letters of administration in respect of house No. 464, Mumfordganj Allahabad. The issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 5. 60. Learned counsel for the defendants has urged that since suit No. 168 of 1982 was pending in the courts below in respect of house No. 464, Murnfordganj, Allahabad, the present petition is not maintainable in law. The argument is that suit No. 168 of 1982 was a suit for an injunction and since in a suit for injunction, the rights in respect of the property in dispute have to be declared, therefore, the petition for letters of administration is not maintainable. I do not agree with this submission. It may be that in a suit for injunction, the Court may have to decide the question as to the title in respect of the property in dispute, but there is no bar in law in filing the present suit for getting the letters of administration in respect of the will. This issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 6. 61. Since I have held that the will is not a validly executed will, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. ORDER The suit is dismissed. I, however, direct the parties to bear their own costs. Suit dismissed.