The appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Sub­ordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in HC 119 of 1983 gran­ting probtate of a Will has been dismissed by the District Coun­cil Court, Aizawl in C.A. Case No. 38 of 1983 and hence this petition in this Court under Rule 18 of the Rules for the Regu­lation of the Procedures of Officers appointed to Administer Justice in the Lushai Hills (for short the "Rules") and Arti­cle 227 of the Constitution. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. Dr. R. K. Khuala died on 2.6.83 at his age of 82. Respondent No. 1, Lalrintluanga is the grandson of late Dr. R. K. Khuala and Respondent No. 2, Ngurbiakvali is the married daughter of late Dr. R. K. Khuala. The petitioner, A. Rohnuna is the youn­gest son of late Dr. Kbuala. The eldest son of late Dr. Khuala father of respondent No. 1 lives separately at Aizawl along with his family including respondent No. 1 in a house which was given by late Dr. Khuala. The respondent No. 2, daughter of late Dr. Khuala, lives permanently in Shillong with her husband. After the death of Dr. Khuala, the respondent No. 1, Sri Lalrinthanga filed a suit which was registered as HC Case No. 119 of 1983 in the court of the Subordinate District Council, Aizawl for taking out probate of a Will alleged to have been execu­ted by the deceased father of the petitioner, Dr. R. K. Khuala on 4.4.82. The present petitioner was impleaded as a defendant in the suit. There were two Wills one executed on 31.3.1982 and the other on 4.4.1982 by late Dr. R. K. Khuala. The Will executed on 4.4.1982 cancelled the Will executed on 31.3.1982. 3. The petitioner contested the suit stating, inter alia, that Dr. R. K. Khuala was not of sound mind when he executed the Wills and both the Wills were void under section 8 of the Mizo District ( Inheritance of Property) Act, 1956 ( for short the 'Act' ), and that the petitioner being the youngest son has right of inheritance under the law prevalent among the Mizos in Mizoram. The Subordinate District Council Court granted pro­bate of the Will under or by an order dated 21.9.83 rejecting the plea of the petitioner. The Subordinate District Council Court granted pro­bate of the Will under or by an order dated 21.9.83 rejecting the plea of the petitioner. The appeal against the order of the Subordinate District Council Court filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Council Court on 3.2.1984 in C. A. case No. 38 of 1983. That is how now the petition has come up for hearing. 4. Shri G. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Will has not been proved in the cir­cumstances of the case. There are materials to show that Dr. R. K. Khuala, who was aged 82, was not of sound mind at the relevant time. Mr. N. M. Lahiri, Advocate General, Meghalaya has contended that the petitioner has admitted the execu­tion of the Will. The plea of the petitioner was that his father was not of sound mind when he executed the Wills and that the contention of the petitioner has been rejected by the Courts below and as such there is no material to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. 5. A reading of sections 4 and 8 of the Act together shows that every person of sound mind not below tae age of 18, may dispose of by Will his or her property which he or she alienate during his or her life. The testator of a Will shall execute Will only when be is of sound mind. The execution of a Will shall be in presence of not less than 2 (two) witnesses. If any person leaves more than one Will, the one bearing the latest date shall be deemed to be final. A Will not attested in accordance with the provision of the Act shall be void. A will or any part of it the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importuity as takes away free agency of the testator is void. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Subordinate District Council Court shall have the like powers and authority in relation to the granting of probate and all matters connected therewith, as are by law vested in it in relation to any Civil Suit or proceeding pending therein. 6. Section 12 of the Act provides that the Subordinate District Council Court shall have the like powers and authority in relation to the granting of probate and all matters connected therewith, as are by law vested in it in relation to any Civil Suit or proceeding pending therein. 6. The Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar vs. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1954 SC 529, a bench of five Hon'ble Judges have held : 'The principles which govern the proving an of a will are well settled ; ( see H. Venkatacliala lyenger v. B. N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SC R 426 : ( AIR 1959 SC443) and Rani Purnima Devi v. Khagendra Narayan Dev, (1962) 3 SCR 195 ; (AIR 1952 SC 567). The mode of proving r a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signa­ture of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumtances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coerecion, the onous is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumtances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testa­tor's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such & case the court would naturally expect that all legiti­mate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. In such & case the court would naturally expect that all legiti­mate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumtance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in remo­ving the suspicious circumtances the court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested The decision of the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar (Supra) has been reiterated in Indu Bala vs. Manindra Chandra, AIR 1982 BC 133. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, whegethe caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the testator's mind. 7. Mr. Talukdar has submitted that there are materials on record to show that Dr. Khuala was not of unsound mind at the relevant time and that the respondent No. 1 has failed to prove the will in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court. He has further submitted that the High Court has the power to reappreciate the evidence on record as held by the Full Bench of this Court, in Ka Idis Mary vs. Ka Theirit Lyngdeh (1969) 1 ALR 92. 8. The relevant provision of the Rule 18 of the Rules is as, follows : "The High Court, or Deputy Commissioner may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any case decided by any officer subordinate to him and pass such orders as he may deem fit." 9. 8. The relevant provision of the Rule 18 of the Rules is as, follows : "The High Court, or Deputy Commissioner may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any case decided by any officer subordinate to him and pass such orders as he may deem fit." 9. Order 6 of the Assam High Court (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954 runs: "The High Court may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any civil or criminal case deci­ded by or pending in any court in the autonomous dis­trict constituted under the provisions of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 4 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (hereinafter called the Court of the District Council) and pass such orders as it may deem fit." 10. In Ka Ms Mary vs. Theirit Lyngdoh, (1959) I ALR 92 (FB), this Court was construing Rule 36 of the Rubs for the Administration of Justice and Police in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, the language of which is the same as that of Rule 18, together with Order 6. In that case, it has been held : "The High Court while exercising revisional pawers will be entitled to go into the facts like an Appellate Court.............................................................................. The High Court may exercise the same powers under Rule 36 as in the case of a first appeal. Under this Rule the revising authority may pass any order as it may deem fit. If this be so, there is no reason why a revising authority should not be competent to reappreciate evide­nce and pass an order setting aside the application made by the lower authority. (emphasis added) 11. In view of the above decision, the High Court may exercise the same powers under Rule 18 and Order 6 as in the case of a first appeal and the High Court is competent to reap­preciate the evidence. The decision above shows that the High Court is competent to reappraise the evidence under the afore­said provisions with a view to examine the records of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself whether there is any mani­fest error of fact or law in reaching the conclusion or there has consequently been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 12. The first appellate Court, the District Council Court, has discussed the evidence. 12. The first appellate Court, the District Council Court, has discussed the evidence. The first appellate Court has obser­ved that a person of unsound mind cannot write a full page will. Dr. Sailo is neither a Neurologist nor a Psychiatrist. Hs himself advised and referred the case to a Neuro Surgeon. There­fore, Dr. Sailo cannot declare that Dr. Khuala as 'unsound mind'. During the time of writing of the prescription dated 18.3.1982, Dr. Sailo did not declare clearly that Dr. Khuala is mad or not. The learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the grant of probate of the will by the Trial Court, the Subordinate District Council Court after discussing mate­rials on records. Therefore, the findings of the Courts below cannot be said to be unreasonable, and there is no error of fact or law in arriving at the conclusion. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. I was away from the Principal Seat for holding court in the outlying Bench at Imphal Circuit Town. This has delayed the delivery of the judgment.