( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the appellant Tilak Raj Kakkar against the judgement dt. 11th Nov. , 1971 passed by Shri R. N. Aggarwal then District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, (as his Lordship then was) whereby the petition of the petitioner appellant for the grant of probate in regard to the Will dt. 21st May, 1962 alleged to have been executed by his sister Smt. Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi who died on 2nd Feb. , 1968, was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ( 2 ) PETITIONER/appellant Tilak Raj Kakkar and respondent No. 1 Shambhu Nath Kakkar and respondent No. 2 Vishwa Nath Kakkar are all brothers. The originally impleaded respondent No. 4 Smt. Sumitra Devi was their mother whose name was struck off by the trial Court from the array of the respondents in the petition on 1st Nov. , 1968 on account of her death during the pendency of the petition before the service therein. ( 3 ) THE appellant Tilak Raj Kakkar went to England a few months after the alleged execution of the aforesaid will Ext. P-2 and during the case was represented by his Special Attorney Kamaljit Singh PW 3. Two witnesses Prem Nath Matik PW 1 and B. N. Sehgal PW 2 were also examined on behalf of the appellant and they made depositions for the purpose of proving the execution of the Will by the deceased Smt. Ajaib Kaur in their presence stating that Ajaib Kaur admitted the contents of the Will to be correct and put her signatures on both the pages of the same in their presence and they along with four others attested the Will at the same time in her presence. They also stated that the typed draft of the Will was brought in their presence by a lawyer. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it was Vishwa Nath respondent No. 2 alone who disputed the execution and genuineness of the Will and examined three witnesses besides himself and according to them Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla deceased was a disabled person incapacitated to walk due to rheumatic pains and had been deserted by her husband and that the deceased lived with Vishwa Nath in his house and that she was maintained by Vishwa Nath and that even her last rites were also performed by Vishwa Nath. ( 5 ) THE learned District Judge was of the view that there were some suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and from the perusal of the impugned judgement the same can be pinpointed as under :- (A) The petitioner did not examine the lawyer who had drafted the Will and there was further no evidence as to under whose instructions the Will was drafted by that lawyer; (b) The appellant did not examine the remaining four attesting witnesses of the Will; (c) The Will is in English and the deceased Ajaib Kaur did not know English and she could only sign in Hindi, even though the PWs had deposed that the lawyer had readover and explained the Will to her and she had admitted the contents thereof and signed the same on each page; (d) Both the witnesses viz. Prem Nath Malik PW 1 and B. N. Sehgal PW 2 are the friends of the petitioner; (e) The petitioner had taken prominent part in the execution of the Will; (f) There was no evidence on the record that the petitioner had been serving the deceased either before or after the alleged execution of the Will or sent to her money for her maintenance, and did not come to India during the remaining six years of her life after the execution of the Will, while on the other hand, the first two witnesses Amolak Singh PW 1 and Sher Singh PW 2 witnesses of Vishwa Nath respondent had deposed that Vishwa Nath used to incur the expenses on the maintenance of the deceased and also performed her last rites. (g) There was no reason at all for the deceased to have made this Will bequeathing all her properties in favour of the petitioner ignoring her other brothers Shambhu Nath and Vishwa Nath, and that the statement of Prem Nath Malik PW 1 in cross-examination that they had asked Ajaib Kaur as to why she was giving her properties to the petitioner and not to other brothers to which she replied that she was the absolute owner and that the petitioner alone had been serving her, did not appear to be correct; (h) There was difference in the alleged two signatures of the deceased on each page of the Will; (i) The Will had come from the possession of the petitioner; (j) The Will was not registered; (k) It was in evidence that the deceased had filed a case against her husband for grant of maintenance and that it was quite likely that the petitioner might have obtained the signatures of the deceased on the document Ext. P-1 (paper of the Will) by mis-representation; (1) The petitioner himself did not appear in the witness box in support of his case and failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will; and (m) The deceased had been deserted by her husband and when the Will is alleged to have been executed, she was an invalid and her mental condition was such that the likelihood that she might have been persuaded to sign a document could not be ruled out. ( 6 ) AS against the aforesaid various factors there are certain other factors which go in favour of the genuineness of the Will and those factors are that Shambhu Nath respondent No. 1 who is a brother of the petitioner and the contesting respondent Vishwa Nath filed in the petition a "no objection" affidavit wherein he deposed that the deceased Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi was his sister and had left behind the Will in question dt. 21st May, 1962 by which she had bequeathed all her movable and immovable property to the petitioner Tilak Raj Kakkar and that he had no objection if probate of the said Will was issued in favour of the Petitioner/appellant. 21st May, 1962 by which she had bequeathed all her movable and immovable property to the petitioner Tilak Raj Kakkar and that he had no objection if probate of the said Will was issued in favour of the Petitioner/appellant. The other factor in favour of the genuineness of this Will is that even though under the requirement of law the Will is to be attested only by two witnesses, there are as many as six attesting witnesses of this Will and the addresses of all of them are also given against their names on this Will. The "no objection" deposed to by one of the brothers Shambhu Nath is the statement by him against his own pecuniary interest and is thus a factor of vital importance, because otherwise had the Will been not genuine and a forged one, he would have inherited 1/3rd share in the properties left behind by the deceased Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi on intestate succession and normally he could not be expected to be unjust and dishonest towards his brother Vishwanath or unduly interested in the petitioner and nothing has been alleged or proved by Vishwa Nath in his written statement or evidence as to why his brother Shambhu Nath conceded the genuineness of this Will whereby the testatrix bequeathed all her property in favour of the appellant alone. ( 7 ) WHEN a forger fabricates a document he would not normally involve more persons therein than the minimum requirement of law and thus would not get the same attested from a large number of witnesses and would not thereby expose himself to the hazard of being let down when the time for proving such a document arises. Out of the six attesting witnesses of the Will Ext. P-2 two witnesses namely Prem Nath Malik PW 1 and B. N. Sehgal PW 2 have been examined by the petitionerappellant in the witness box whereas a third attesting witness K. S. Rangani has appended his verification to the petition regarding execution of this Will by the deceased Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi in his presence and such verification is also the requirement of law. It, thus, means that as many as three attesting witnesses support the genuineness of this Will as having been executed by Smt. Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi. It, thus, means that as many as three attesting witnesses support the genuineness of this Will as having been executed by Smt. Ajaib Kaur alias Bimla Devi. If the respondent Vishwa Nath wanted he could have summoned in the witness box the remaining three attesting witnesses if he really felt that they would not support the alleged execution of the Will by Ajaib Kaur. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid two factors viz. (i) the no objection affidavit by Shambhu Nath brother of the parties and (ii) the attestation of the Will by as many as six witnesses, though only two would have sufficed, appear to be sufficiently outstanding so as to over shadow numerous various factors pointed out by the learned District Judge in the impugned judgement and already referred to above and the truth of the matter appears to be decided by these two factors taken together. ( 9 ) THE cross-examination of Vishwa Nath respondent RW 4 shows that the deceased was receiving Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance from her husband who had deserted her and that he himself (Vishwa Nath) was drawing a salary of Rs. 250/- per month and he had a wife and three daughters, and with these facts there shall be no difficulty in appreciating as to what sort of maintenance Vishwa Nath could possibly provide to his deserted sister Ajaib Kaur @ Bimla Devi who was herself receiving a sum of Rs. 100/- per month by way of main-tenance from her deserting husband. In this view of the matter the trump card of Vishwa Nath respondent played by himself and his witnesses falls to the ground and is of no avail to him. The appellant being the youngest brother could be of some physical service to the deceased who was admittedly handicapped suffering from rheumatic pains and it is no wonder that she bequeathed all her property in favour of the appellant especially when her property was not worth much value in the year 1962 when the Will was made. ( 10 ) THE appearance of the appellant/petitioner himself in the witness box would have been quite an expensive affair and even his appearance would not have been of much useful purpose because it is the testimony of the attesting witnesses of the Will which is of significant import. ( 10 ) THE appearance of the appellant/petitioner himself in the witness box would have been quite an expensive affair and even his appearance would not have been of much useful purpose because it is the testimony of the attesting witnesses of the Will which is of significant import. The omission to summon the lawyer who drafted the Will is hardly of any significance and moreover the witnesses of the appellant could not be expected to know his name nor that lawyer s name was asked by the respondents counsel in their cross-examination. ( 11 ) THE ailment of rheumatic pains suffered by the deceased had nothing to do with her mental faculties and it is nobody s case that her mental faculties were impaired by that ailment or for that reason she was not possessed of a sound disposing mind and did not know what she was doing while making the Will bequeathing her entire property in favour of the appellant. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgement under appeal looks erroneous and so accepting the appeal the impugned judgement is set aside and the petition is accepted and I order the grant of probate in favour of the petitioner/appellant Tilak Raj Kakkar in respect of the estate of the deceased detailed fully in the schedule set out in para 8 of the petition subject to the petitioner/appellant filing valuation of the property of the deceased in the form prescribed by law, paying Court-fees thereon and executing the requisite administration bond with one surety engaging for the due collection, getting in and administering the estate of the deceased. ( 13 ) THE aforesaid formalities be completed by the petitioner/appellant within two months from today. Appeal accepted.