JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment dated January 31, 1985 delivered by Mr. Justice Bharucha granting the petition for probate filed by the respondent and dismissing the Caveat lodged by the appellant. Few facts which gave rise to the filing of the appeal are as follows : 2. One Shivgopal Bandedin Shukla died on October 20, 1978 leaving behind a Will executed on January 4, 1977. Shivgopal had four sons: Krishnakumar the respondent, Girjashankar, Devendrakumar, and Ramakant the appellant. The wife of Shivgopal had died on February 13, 1970. Shivgopal, along with his wife and the respondent had purchased an immoveable property bearing Survey No. 3, Hissa No. 1/1 (Part) admeasuring about 7968 square meters situated at Bandivli, Jogeshwari, Bombay. Each of the three joint owners had equal share in the suit property. The wife of Shivgopal had executed a Will bequeathing her 1/3rd share in the property in favour of Shivgopal, and after her death 2/3rd share in the property came to the interest of Shivgopal. The property was thereafter partitioned between Shivgopal and Krishnakumar the respondent, by metes and bounds and Shivgopal was separately holding the portion which came to his share, ate the time of his death. 3. Shivgopal executed his registered Will on January 4, 1977 and which was produced before the learned Judge and marked Ex. 'A'. The Will inter alia, recites that the property was partitioned between Shivgopal and the respondent and the portion which came to the share of the respondent was marked as 'D' on the plan annexed to the Will and marked as Ex. 'A'. The portions which were allotted to Shivgopal in the partition were marked a 'A', 'B', and 'C' on the sketch. By the Will, the portion marked as 'A' on the plan annexed to the Will was bequeathed in favour of the appellant, while portions 'B' and 'C' were bequeathed in favour of Girjashankar and Devendrakumar respectively. 4. The respondent who was appointed as sole executor by late Shivgopal instituted Petition No. 220 of 1979 in this Court on February 13, 1979, for obtaining Probate. 4. The respondent who was appointed as sole executor by late Shivgopal instituted Petition No. 220 of 1979 in this Court on February 13, 1979, for obtaining Probate. After the citations were issued, the appellant filed affidavit objecting to the grant of probate, inter alia, alleging that the deceased Shivgopal was not in a position to execute the Will as he had become very old and was not in a position to understand what he was doing. It was also claimed that the sketch (Ex. 4) annexed to the Will was subsequently inserted. The objection seems to have been taken because the portion marked 'C' is larger in area than the portions marked as 'A' and 'B' on the sketch. On the portion marked 'A' and which is bequeathed to appellant by Shivgopal, there is a building and the appellant is in possession of a portion thereof. At the trial the respondent examined the attesting witness Kantilal Jethalal Shah, while the other attesting witness Narsi Champsi Bheda was examined by the appellant. The learned trial Judge, after marshalling the evidence and the averments made in the Probate Petition and the affidavit lodged by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the Will was genuine and there was no evidence whatsoever led by the appellant to establish deceased Shivgopal was not in sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will. The learned Judge also overruled the objection that the sketch annexed to the Will was subsequently inserted. On the strength of this finding, the Probate Petition was granted and the Caveat lodged by the appellant was dismissed. The order of the learned judge is under challenge. 5. Miss Iyer, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, did not dispute the finding recorded by the learned Judge, that there is no evidence led by the appellate to establish that the deceased Shivgopal was not in sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. The learned Counsel also did not dispute the finding, that the appellant failed to establish that the Will was executed by Shivgopal under undue influence or duress. The learned Counsel restricted her submission only to one point and that is, that the sketch annexed to the Will was not presented along with the Will at the time of registration. The submission is that Ex. The learned Counsel restricted her submission only to one point and that is, that the sketch annexed to the Will was not presented along with the Will at the time of registration. The submission is that Ex. 'A' which is annexed to the original Will was inserted subsequently and, therefore, the entire Will and the disposal of the property thereunder is highly suspicious. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. We have perused the original Will along with the sketch annexed to it. The mere perusal of the original documents clearly indicates that the sketch (Ex. A) annexed to the will was indeed presented for registration along with the original Will. The Joint Sub-Registrar has affixed the rubber stamp on the first page of the Will and a portion of the stamp appears on the reverse of the sketch annexed thereto. The portion of two rubber stamps annexed by the Joint Sub-Registrar appears on the reverse of the plan and that circumstance conclusively establishes that Ex. 'A' which is annexed to the Will must have been lodged for registration along with the original Will. The Will was presented along with the sketch for registration on January 4, 1977 and there is an endorsement made by the joint-Sub-Registrar of the presentation of the document. The document along with the sketch was registered at No. 2 of 1977 of Book No. 3 on January 13, 1977 and the Joint Sub-Registrar had made endorsement, duly signed, on that day both on the original Will as well as on the sketch. Miss Iyer urged that the Sub-Registrar had signed on the original sketch annexed to the Will on January 13, 1977 and that should lead to the conclusion that the sketch was not presented to the Joint Sub-Registrar on January 4, 1977. It is impossible to accede to this submission because the Joint Sub Registrar had made endorsement on the Will on January 4, 1977 when it was presented for registration. The Will itself recites that sketch (Ex. 'A') is annexed as part of the original Will. The joint Sub-registrar put his signature on this sketch (Ex. A) and also on the original Will when it was registered on January 13, 1977. The Will itself recites that sketch (Ex. 'A') is annexed as part of the original Will. The joint Sub-registrar put his signature on this sketch (Ex. A) and also on the original Will when it was registered on January 13, 1977. In our judgment, there is nothing to raise any suspicion about presentation of Will along with sketch for registration and it is not possible to accept the submission that the sketch was substituted at a subsequent date. 6. It will also be appropriate to state that Kantilal Jethalal Shah, one of the attesting witness, who was examined by the respondent was specifically asked in cross-examination that the sketch (Ex. A) was not annexed to the Will on January 4, 1977 and the witness denied the suggestion. The appellant did not pursue the cross-examination and suggest to the witness that the rubber stamp partly appearing on the original Will and partly on the sketch was not affixed by the Joint Sub-Registrar at the time of presentation of document and in absence of any such suggestion, it was not necessary for the respondent to examine the Joint Sub-Registrar, as suggested by Miss, Iyer indeed, in our judgment, in case the appellant desired to suggest that the Joint Sub-Registrar had not affixed the rubber stamp on the plan on January 4, 1977 then it was open for the appellant to call the Joint Sub-Registrar in the witness-box to secure the explanation. Miss Iyer relied upon the fact that a copy of the sketch was not available in the record of the Joint Sub-Registrar to suggest that Ex. 'A' annexed to the original Will was a forged document. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. It is undoubtedly true that the Joint Sub-Registrar had informed the appellant by letter dated September 23, 1982, that on taking search of the record, it is found that there is no remark on the record photo copy of the Will as to the filing of the true copy of the sketch annexed with the original Will. The mere fact that the copy of the sketch is not on record is not sufficient to conclude that Ex. 'A' was subsequently inserted by the Joint Sub-Registrar. The mere fact that the copy of the sketch is not on record is not sufficient to conclude that Ex. 'A' was subsequently inserted by the Joint Sub-Registrar. It is not possible to jump to any such conclusion which proceed on the assumption that the Joint Sub-Registrar was colluding with the respondent in preparing the forged document. In our judgment, there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. -----