JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Balbir Singh against the judgment & decree dated 10.3. 1981 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Lucknow, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant and thereby refusing to issue Letters of Administration in favour of the appellant in respect of the estate of Late Sri Gopal Narain Fadnis. 2. Appellant Balbir Singh had filed the suit under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act with a prayer that the Letters of Administration with the will of the deceased annexed therewith be granted in his favour, The case of the appellant is that Late Sri Gopal Narain Fadnis had died on 1911.1983. Late Sri Fadnis had executed a will dated May 18, 1961 in favour of the appellant. The property in the Will included House No. 108/53, Model House, Lucknow. The Will was registered before the SubRegistrar. In the petition for grant of Letters of Administration it was also mentioned that earlier a suit was filed by the appellant for grant of Probate but that was dismissed on the ground that no executor was appointed by the Will. Two annexures A & B have been annexed alongwith the petition, annexure 'A' indicating the movable and immovable properties of the deceased including House No. 108/153 situate in Model House Gangni Shukul Ka Talab, Lucknow, valued at Rs. 51,000. The other movable properties shown in the list was of negligible amount. 3. The respondent, Salochana Devi, daughter of Late Gopal Narain Fadnis filed written statement resisting the petition filed by the appellant for issue of Letter of Administration. The case, as given in the written statement in short, is that Gopal Narain Fadnis was a successful businessman having earned quite some fortune. The respondent is the only daughter of the deceased. The mother of respondent suffered from some mental ailment and ultimately she died while the respondent was still child of tender age. Gaya Prasad, father of Balbir Singh, appellant was initially employed by Late Gopal Narain Fadnis as his servant in his business of dry and fresh fruits but later on he had become a partner of business. After the death of the mother of the respondent, Gaya Prasad got closer to Gopal Narain Fadnis on the pretext of extending help to him in the absence of his wife and in bringing up of the respondent. After the death of the mother of the respondent, Gaya Prasad got closer to Gopal Narain Fadnis on the pretext of extending help to him in the absence of his wife and in bringing up of the respondent. By and by Gaya Prasad and Balbir Singh became in a position of dominating the Will of Late Gopal Narain Fadnis. In the year 1950 Gopal Narain Fadnis was badly assaulted by some unknown assailants on the bank of River Gomti where he used to go for a walk. According to the respondent, her father was seriously injured but somehow his life was saved. After this incident of assault her father had become almost crippled and lost soundness of mind and became devoid of competent understanding, in 1950, due to in capacity by which Gopal Narain Fadnis was suffering, the partnership firm was dissolved and Gaya Prasad continued with the business alone. The appellant and his father prevailed upon Gopal Narain Fadnis to marry the respondent at the age of 13 years in the year 1953. She was married to one Yogendra Sharma on the suggestion of Gaya Prasad. Out of the wedlock the respondent gave birth to a daughter named Aarti Sharma. 4. On 25.9.1958 Gopal Narain Fadnis had executed a Will in respect of the house in question in favour of the respondent. This Will was also registered. It has further been stated in the written statement that in 1960 ;due to certain circumstances, which had later developed, a deed of divorce was written, by which divorce took place between the respondent and Yogendra Sharma. However, she again married to one Ram Chandra Sharma in December, 1960. The case of the respondent is that the earlier divorce deled was attested by Gopal Narain Fadnis as well and the second marriage also with Ram Chandra Sharma was arranged by Gopal Nirain Fadnis. It has been averred that after the second marriage, when the respondent was again away from the Scene, Gaya Prasad and Balbir Singh got influence over Gopal Narain Fadnis and under their influence and dominance manipulated the Will dated 18th May, 1961 in favour of the appellant. According to the respondent her father had been having the same affection for her throughout his life. According to the respondent her father had been having the same affection for her throughout his life. He had already bequeathed the same property in her favour in the year 1958, thereafter, he had never expressed any displeasure against the respondent nor ever informed her of having executed the second Will. It was also averred in the written statement that the appellant did not inform her about the death of her father. She could know about it only after a week of his death. According to her, this concealment was done with a view to usurp all other movable property which was in the house. On coming to know of the death of her father, when she went, the appellant did not allow her to enter into the house saying that she had no right on anything It has also been pleaded that the Will is forged one which does not bear the signature of her father and in any case it is proved that it was executed by him, it was then got executed under the influence of the appellant and his father and there are a number of suspicious circumstances by reason of which the said Will cannot be said to be genuine. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following : ISSUES 1. Whether Gopal Narain Fadnis duly executed a registered Will dated 18th May, 61 in favour of plaintiff ? 2. Whether the said Will is void due to uncertainty? 3. Whether the testator was of sound disposing mind at the time the Will was executed ? 4. Whether the suit is barred by the principles of res judicata or constructive res judicata due to decision in Suit No. 1 of 1964? 5. Whether the plaint has not been properly verified? If so, its effect? 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? 7. To what relief, if any is the plaintiff entitled? 8. Whether the Will dated 18.5.61 relied upon by the plaintiff was executed by Gopal Narain in the circumstances alleged in para 54 of the written statement and as such invalid and void? 6. The trial court decided issues nos. 1,2, 3 and 8 together and recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove due execution of the will and that the will was not genuine. Issue no. 6. The trial court decided issues nos. 1,2, 3 and 8 together and recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove due execution of the will and that the will was not genuine. Issue no. 4 was decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that proceedings in earlier Suit No. I of 1964 for grant of probate did not bar the present suit on the ground of principle of res judicata. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 were also decided against the respondent Smt. Salochana as it could not be pointed out as to how the plaint was not properly valued or on what ground the respondent was entitled for special costs. Issue No. 7 was decided against the plaintiff holding that he was not entitled to any relief. 7. Before we mention about the evidence produced in the case by the parties it may be pointed out that during pendency of the proceedings before the trial court the original documents filed by the plaintiff appellant Balbir Singh namely, the original Will dated 18th May, 1961, the earlier Wilt in original dated 25.9.58 in favour of the respondent sale deed dated 25.9.58 executed in favour of the appellant by Gopal Narain Fadnis and Smt. Salochana Devi in respect of another property and deed of relinquishment dated 25.9.58 executed by Salochana Devi in favour of her father in respect of property sold to Balbir Singh, were ail lost. It appears that no enquiry was held for fixing responsibility about the loss of documents. To prove the execution of the Will in favour of the appellant he has adduced secondary evidence. Before the loss of documents the Experts of both the parties had taken photographs of the relevant documents on the basis of which they had submitted their reports. 8. In support of his case the plaintiff appellant had examined himself as P.W. 1. P.W. 2 A. S. Kapoor is the HandWriting Expert, P.W. 3 Pratap Singh and P. W. 6 Rama Nand are attesting witnesses to the Will. P. W. 4 R.C. Gupta is a Lawyer, whose clerk had scribed the Will and P. W. 5 Shambhu Nath, a Lawyer, who had got the earlier sale deed and Will deed prepared and executed in 1958. The defendant respondent had examined herself as D.W. 1. P. W. 4 R.C. Gupta is a Lawyer, whose clerk had scribed the Will and P. W. 5 Shambhu Nath, a Lawyer, who had got the earlier sale deed and Will deed prepared and executed in 1958. The defendant respondent had examined herself as D.W. 1. D.W. 2 Chandra Kumar Jauhari and D.W. 3 Shiv Pratap Trivedi are HandWriting Experts and documents examiners. D.W. 4 Viayusuta Karkut and D.W. 5 Kunwar Kanti Veer Gupta have been examined by the defendant to show that her second marriage had taken place in their presence and the same was arranged by her father. 9. The trial court, while deciding the issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8, held that the attesting witnesses to the execution of the Will were not such on whom reliance could be placed. The case of the plaintiff that the testator had gone to the house of P.W. 4 R.C. Gupta, Advocate, for drafting of the Will was also not accepted. It was further found that the plaintiff could not dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will in question by which the testator, had disinherited her own daughter, to whom he had bequeathed the property earlier by means of Will executed in 1958. The Will was found to be unnatural by which the daughter and the grand daughter of the testator were excluded for no good reasons. It was also found that the testator was in bad health and the appellant & his father were in a position to dominate the Will and volition of Gopal Narain Fadnis. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the trial court, 10. The first submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the Will was duly executed as required under the law. It is contended that once the trial court had accepted the testimony of HandWriting Expert produced by the appellant, who had opined that the disputed thumb mark was put on Register No 8 of the SubRegistrar's Office on the documents executed in 1958, there was no reason to hold that the document was not duly executed. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that according to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act the execution of a Willis to be attested by two witnesses who had seen the testator signing the Will. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that according to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act the execution of a Willis to be attested by two witnesses who had seen the testator signing the Will. If that requirement is fulfilled then the Will stands duly executed. In this connection he had referred to the statement of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh who has stated that Gopal Narain Fadnis had executed Will which was signed by the testator in the presence of the witness. The witness has also put his signature on the Will. The witness, in the examinationinchief, has further stated that the testator Gopal Narain and the witnesses namely, he himself, P.W. 6 Rama Nand and Kamta Prasad (dead) had signed and had put the thumb impression over the Will in the presence of each other. He has also stated that the Will was first read over and then signed. Learned counsel then referred to the statement made by P. W. 6 Rama Nand. He has stated that Sri Fadnis had signed the Will and at that time the witnesses viz Rama Nand, Pratap Singh and Kamta Prasad were present. The witnesses had put their signatures in the presence of Gopal Narain Fadnis. On the basis of the above statements made by the attesting witnesses it has been submitted that the Will stands duly executed. 11. However, on behalf of the respondents the submission made on behalf of the appellant is refuted. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the statement of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh. In para 3 of his crossexamination he has stated that when he had signed on the Will as witness at that time, the SubRegistrar, his Peon and Gopal Narain alone were present there. He has also stated that he was first to arrive there, it was thereafter that Kamta Prasad has reached and after that Rama Nand had arrived. So from the crossexamination of Pratap Singh it is clear that at the time he had signed the Will as attesting witness no other witness was present there. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as follows: 63. So from the crossexamination of Pratap Singh it is clear that at the time he had signed the Will as attesting witness no other witness was present there. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act which reads as follows: 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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark or the signature of such other present and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more then one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 12. The above provision provides that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator signing or affixing his thumb impression to the will or has received from the testator a personal knowledge of his signature or marks. It would, however, not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time. On the basis of the statement made by Pratap Singh in his crossexamination that when he had signed the will no other attesting witness was present there, what fallows is that P.W. 3 Pratap Singh and P.W. 6 Rama Nand may have signed the will separately and not at the one and the same time. On the basis of the statement made by Pratap Singh in his crossexamination that when he had signed the will no other attesting witness was present there, what fallows is that P.W. 3 Pratap Singh and P.W. 6 Rama Nand may have signed the will separately and not at the one and the same time. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the testator had signed the will twice, once in the presence of P. W, 3 Pratap Singh and again when it was attested by P.W. 6 Rama Hand. It is also not the case that the testator had made acknowledgement of his signature and thumb impression to the other witnesses. According to P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, P.W. 6 Rama Nand had arrived later on. Thus if the testator had signed the will in presence of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh when no other attesting witness was present, then the testator must not have signed the will in the presence of the other attesting witnesses as required under the law. As indicated earlier as well, it is not the case that the testator had made a personal acknowledgement of his signature on the will to the other witness. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on the basis of what has been elicited in the cross examination of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh the evidence falls short of proving the due execution of Will according to law as provided under Section 63 Clause (c) of the Indian Succession Act. We are not prepared to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the statements of the attesting witnesses made in their examinationinchief prove the attestation of the will as required under law. The statement made in examinationinchief has to be read alongwith crossexamination of the witnesses. As a matter of fact the statement made in examinationinchief stand demolished. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that the learned trial court had erred in disbelieving the testimony of the two attesting witnesses merely on the ground that they were the servants of Gaya Prasad at the time they had attested the Will. In this connection he has placed reliance upon a case reported in 1986 SC 500 Satya Pal Gopal Das v. Smt Panchubala Dasi and others. In this connection he has placed reliance upon a case reported in 1986 SC 500 Satya Pal Gopal Das v. Smt Panchubala Dasi and others. In that case the testimony of the attesting witnesses was not doubted for different reasons and it was observed that two of the attesting witnesses were the most trusted servants of the testator who could well attest the will but we find that in the present case the two attesting witnesses were not servants of the testator at the time the will was executed. Previously they were employees of the firm in which the testator was one of the partners but later on the firm was dissolved at least about five years before the execution of the will. After dissolution of the partnership these witnesses became employees of Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad is the father of the beneficiary of the will. Therefore, in the case we find that all the three attesting witnesses, one of whom had died, were servants of Gaya Prasad. None of them is shown to have been specially close to the testator or enjoyed his trust. On the other hand all the attesting witnesses, being employees of the father of the beneficiary, may have enjoyed some special confidence and trust of Gaya Prasad. The case, therefore, cited on behalf of the appellant is not helpful to him on this point. Another case relied upon is AIR 1983 SC 114 Madhusudhan Das Vs. Smt. Narayani Bai and others. In this case also we do not find position any different. On the other hand we find that it emerges out from the above noted case that it would be more natural that the testator has, as his witness, a person who is close to him and in whom he has confidence and (sic) trust. We, therefore, find no good reason to upset the findings recorded by the trial court on the point specially when we find that the statement of P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, in crossexamination, contradicts his own statement in examinationinchief and the testimony of the other attesting witness, P.W. 6 Rama Nand. 14. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that it has not been suggested to the two attesting witnesses in their crossexamination that they were not making the correct statement and were helping the plaintiff because they were in service of the father of the plaintiff. 14. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that it has not been suggested to the two attesting witnesses in their crossexamination that they were not making the correct statement and were helping the plaintiff because they were in service of the father of the plaintiff. So, their statements cannot be challenged on that ground. On the other hand their evidence should be taken to have been accepted by the defendant respondent in absence of such a suggestion. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon two cases reported in AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 A.E.C. Carapiet v. A. I. Derderian and AIR 1958 Punjab 440 Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath Vs. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. We find that it has come in evidence of the attesting witnesses that the partnership of Gopal Narain and Gaya Prasad had come to an end in 1956, thereafter the business was carried on by Gaya Prasad alone. The attesting witnesses continued in the employment of Gaya Prasad. It has been suggested to P.W. 3 Pratap Singh, that he was related to Gaya Prasad which fact has been denied by him. It was also suggested to him that he was giving false evidence because of Biradari and relationship with Balbir Singh. The whole trend of the cross examination is such which challenges the veracity of the testimony of the witnesses. It has been suggested to P. W. 6 Rama Nand also that he was giving false evidence because of good relations with the plaintiff. This witness has also stated that Gopal Narain Fadnis was in good health when the will was executed. This averment is also belied by the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar to the effect that Gopal Narain Fadnis was ill. In assessing the credibility of the statement of the witnesses the whole statement, including the cross examination has to be taken into consideration. If a question has not been put in a particular manner or in particular words that would not be very material. Correctness of the statements made by the attesting witnesses has been challenged in the crossexamination. Therefore, it cannot be argued on behalf of the appellant that any part of the statement of these witnesses is to be taken as accepted by the respondent. Correctness of the statements made by the attesting witnesses has been challenged in the crossexamination. Therefore, it cannot be argued on behalf of the appellant that any part of the statement of these witnesses is to be taken as accepted by the respondent. It is always permissible to draw reasonable inference from the established facts taking into account all other relevant facts and circumstances. The learned trial court held that Pratap Singh is a partisan and interested witness. Regarding P.W. 6 Rama Nand it was observed that much reliance would not be placed on him. Upon careful consideration of the testimony of these two witnesses, in the light of past circumstances as a whole, we find no reason to differ from the appreciation of the oral evidence of the witnesses by the trial court who was in a better position to watch and assess the demeanour of the persons before him in the witness box. It may not be clear and easy in every case to find out direct connection and basis to hold out a witness as interested witness such a finding may be recorded on the inferential basis, inference to be drawn from the very nature of the testimony examined in the context of facts and circumstances of the case as a whole. There are good and sufficient reasons, in our view, which make it difficult to place reliance on the testimony of these witnesses. 15. The trial court has found that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the will which could not be explained by the plaintiff, the will, therefore, cannot be accepted as a genuine will. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the propounder of the Will is able to prove that the Will was signed or thumb marked by the testator and was duly executed by him in a fit mental state then the burden shifts on the objector to prove that the Will is forged one or is unacceptable as a genuine Will for any reason whatsoever. He has further submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 1 A.S. Kapoor, Handwriting Expert and the statements of attesting witnesses P. Ws. 3 and 6 and P.W. 4 Sri R. C. Gupta, Advocate it is amply proved that the Will in question bears the signatures of Gopal Narain Fadnis. He has further submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 1 A.S. Kapoor, Handwriting Expert and the statements of attesting witnesses P. Ws. 3 and 6 and P.W. 4 Sri R. C. Gupta, Advocate it is amply proved that the Will in question bears the signatures of Gopal Narain Fadnis. The fact and circumstances of the case as well as the statements of the witnesses indicate that the testator was in a fit mental disposition at the time of the execution of the Will, therefore, the initial burden cast upon the plaintiff, was duly discharged. It has also been submitted that there did not exist any suspicious circumstance throwing doubt upon the genuineness of the Will. We may, at the very outset point out that we have already held that the statements of the attesting witnesses are not reliable and that the due execution of the Will had not been proved in accordance with Section 63 Clause (c) of the Indian Succession Act. However, the matter shall also be examined from this angle as well, namely, whether there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will or not and whether those circumstances have been duly explained by the plaintiff or hot. In this connection the leading cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are AIR 1959 SC 443 H. Venkatachala lyenger v. P.N. Thimmajamma and others, AIR 1971 SC 2236 Smt. Sushila Devi v. Pandit Krishna Kumar Missir and others and AIR 1972 SC 2492 Puspavati and others v. Chandraia Kadamba and others. From a perusal of the cases mentioned above, the position under the law appears to be that if the bequest made in a Will appears to be unnatural the Court has to scrutinise the evidence adduced in support of the execution of the Will with a greater degree of care than usual. The main test should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. As observed in the case of Smt. Sushila Devi (Supra) The onus must be on the propounder and in absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator, as required by law may be sufficient to discharge the onus. As observed in the case of Smt. Sushila Devi (Supra) The onus must be on the propounder and in absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator, as required by law may be sufficient to discharge the onus. From the above observation it is clear that in cases, except where there ire suspicious circumstances, ordinarily the onus on the propounder of the Will is discharged by proving testamentary capacity of the testator and his signatures. What follows is that in a case where there exist suspicious circumstances mere discharge of onus, as indicated above, may not be sufficient, the burden s ill remains in such a case upon the propounder of the Will to dispel the doubts arising out of suspicious circumstances so as to satisfy the conscience of the court about the genuineness of the Will. Similar observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pushpavati and others (supra) as were made in the earlier decision of Smt. Sushila Devi (supra). 16. The question, thus, would be what are the factors which may constitute the suspicious circumstances. In this connection we find that a reference to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment in the case of Pushpavati and others (supra) would be useful. The observation is as follows: Where there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder of the Will has to explain them away to the satisfaction of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, 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. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the Court would have to give effect to the Will even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a reference, while making the above observations, to an earlier decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee. Hon'ble Supreme Court has made a reference, while making the above observations, to an earlier decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 529 Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee. From the observation quoted above it is clear that unnatural dispositions made in the Will, which may be improbable and unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances, constitutes a suspicious circumstances. It has got to be explained away by the propounder of the Will in any case. If the propounder of the Will succeeds in dispelling the doubts looming around the Will it has to be given effect to despite the fact that any near relation may have been absolutely excluded from inheriting the property but in case the propounder of the Will is unable to explain the unnatural dispositions in the Will it has to be ignored. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case whether exclusion of a particular person amounts to unnatural disposition in the Will or not. Property bequeathed, leaving one's own kith and kin, can be explained provided the relevant circumstances are such as to explain it. The trial court has referred to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1962 (2) Allahabad 950 Aditya Prasad Khattry v. Smt. Munni Devi and others, where it has been observed that the exclusion of persons having a claim upon the testator is a very suspicious circumstance and if no satisfactory explanation is provided by the propounder, is a good ground for refusing probate. 17. On the above legal principles we may examine as to how far the Will executed by the testator is natural and fair. It is undisputed that the respondent is the only issue of the testator. After her marriage she had given birth to a female child, namely, Km. Arti Sharma who is alive and had been visiting the testator. The daughter and granddaughter both have been excluded by means of the Will in question. Earlier in the year 1958 the testator had executed a Will in favour of his daughter namely, Salochana. So there had to be some strong reasons for executing another later Will in favour of a person who is wholly unconnected and is stranger to the family. To exclude the daughter who is the only issue is obviously not natural at all. Such a conduct naturally raises doubts and suspicion. So there had to be some strong reasons for executing another later Will in favour of a person who is wholly unconnected and is stranger to the family. To exclude the daughter who is the only issue is obviously not natural at all. Such a conduct naturally raises doubts and suspicion. Even if there was something against the daughter there should have been some strong reason to ignore the grand daughter. We may, therefore, turn to the Will which gave reasons for making the bequest in favour of the plaintiff appellant. The recital in the Will shows that the testator was displeased with his daughter Salochana as she had left her husband against his wishes and she had married again of her own Will, this had put blemish on his name. The testator also felt that she would squander away his property, therefore, disinherited her. It is further recited in the Will that the plaintiff appellant was taking care of the testator in all ways and further that he would continue the name of the testator, therefore, he bequeathed his property to Balbir Singh. These are the reasons given to explain the unnatural bequest made in favour of the appellant. If established these reasons could explain away suspicious circumstances, but these reasons appear to be incorrect and nonexistent. We may now proceed to examine and scrutinise the explanations given in the Will. 18. The respondent and her first husband Sri Yogendra Sharma had left each other by means of a written agreement. It is printed at page 220 o f the type written paper book. It is dated 18.9.60. This deed bears the signature of Gopal Narain Fadnis alongwith the signature of Gaya Prasad, the father of Balbir Singh, therefore, it cannot be said that Sri Yogendra Sharma and Salochana had separated against the wishes of Gopal Narain Fadnis. If that was so, he would not have witnessed the document, specially when he was so displeased on this account that subsequently he disinherited his daughter. So far the second marriage of Smt. Salochana is concerned it is there in evidence that it was arranged and was performed by Gopal Narain Fadni. The defendant has examined two witnesses on the point. D.W. 4 is Smt. Vayusuta Karkut. She was Director of U.P. Women Welfare, therefore, she was posted as Deputy Director in Social Development Scheme. So far the second marriage of Smt. Salochana is concerned it is there in evidence that it was arranged and was performed by Gopal Narain Fadni. The defendant has examined two witnesses on the point. D.W. 4 is Smt. Vayusuta Karkut. She was Director of U.P. Women Welfare, therefore, she was posted as Deputy Director in Social Development Scheme. After her retirement she had been representative of Delhi and Jammu Kashmir in Kasturba Gandhi Memorial Trust. She has stated that earlier divorce between Salochana and Yogendra Sharma had taken place with the consent of Gopal Nirain Fadnis. The second marriage of Salochana was also performed by her father Gopal Narain Fadnis. It was with his consent. The witness had attended the marriage function. In her cross examination she has admitted that for the last about 9 years Salochana had been living in one of the rooms of her house but her mess is separate. She does not charge any rent from Salochana. She has also stated that she knew Salochana for the last 15 to 20 years. She has further stated that she knew the father of Salochana since a very longtime. She has also stated that the father of Salochana had taken advice from her about the second marriage of Salochana. The other witness is D.W.5 Kunwar Kantivir Gupta. He has stated that Gopal Narain Fadnis himself had gone to the house of the witness to invite him in the second marriage of Salochana. He had attended, the function of the first marriage of Salochana. He has further stated that it is incorrect that the relations of Smt. Salochana had not been good with her father after her second marriage. He has stated that he had good relation with the family since a very long time. He treats Smt. Salochana as his Niece. He had attended the function of the second marriage. On behalf of the plaintiff a suggestion was made to both of the witnesses mentioned above, about the bad character of Smt. Salochana which was denied by them. After going through the statement of these witnesses we find no good ground to disbelieve them. Both of them are aged and respectable persons having long and good relations with Late Sri Gopal Narain Fadnis. The fact deposed by them are thus expected to be in their knowledge. After going through the statement of these witnesses we find no good ground to disbelieve them. Both of them are aged and respectable persons having long and good relations with Late Sri Gopal Narain Fadnis. The fact deposed by them are thus expected to be in their knowledge. It is clearly established from their statements that the second marriage of Smt. Salochana was performed by her father with his consent. An effort was made to show that Gopal Narain Fadnis was unhappy with his daughter because of her loose character. There is not such recital in the Will nor it appears in the case set out by the plaintiff. It shows that the plaintiff tried to make all efforts to establish that the father of Salochana was unhappy with her but we are not prepared to accept this contention. In our opinion, thus, the two reasons, which have been tried to be shown for unhappiness of Gopal Narain Fadnis towards Salochana, are not established. 19. We may now proceed to examine the reasons as recited in the Will for bequest in favour of Balbir Singh. It has been stated that Balbir Singh was taking care of Gopal Narain Fadnis in all ways. In this connection we may peruse the statement of the appellant Balbir Singh. In paragraph 3 of his statement he has stated that he had personally b en looking after Gopal Narain Fadnis. That was the only relationship between them and nothing else. He used to work for Gopal Narain Fadnis. Further he specified the work that he had been doing for him and he says that he used to make purchases from market for Gopal Narain Fadnis. He did it for Gopal Narain Fadnis as he was an old man. He has then admitted that Gopal Narain Fadnis had a servant called Bachcha. The two attesting witnesses had also slated that they were fetched by Gopal Narain Fadnis through his1 servant. Since Gopal Narain Fadnis himself had a servant it cannot be said that he was dependent upon Balbir Singh in any manner. He could very well get the purchases made through his servant. P.W. 3 Pratap Narain has stated1 in paragraph 4 that in the year 1961 Balbir Singh used to live in his Sasural. P.W.2 Balbir Singh, in paragraph 2 of his statement, has stated that he is married in village Sameshi. He could very well get the purchases made through his servant. P.W. 3 Pratap Narain has stated1 in paragraph 4 that in the year 1961 Balbir Singh used to live in his Sasural. P.W.2 Balbir Singh, in paragraph 2 of his statement, has stated that he is married in village Sameshi. He has been going to village Sameshi to lookafter the work there as his wife did not have any other relation. He has been living in village Sameshi in connection with looking after the work there for 10 to 15 days in a month. He then states that for the remaining days he used to live in Lucknow as at Lucknow too he had to look after the work but he had no special work at Lucknow. He used to come since his parents have been living at Lucknow. From the above statement it is clear that P.W. 2 Balbir Singh lived in village Sameshi, according to his own admission, for about 10 to 15 days in a month. For the rest of the period he used to come to Lucknow since his parents resided here. In these circumstances it cannot be| accepted that Balbir Singh had been taking care of Gopal Narain Fadnis. He must have been lookedafter by some one in the absence of Balbir Singh. From his statement it appears that his main stay was in village Sameshi. The reason for coming to Lucknow has been shown as his parents resided in Lucknow. He has not stated that he used to be in Lucknow for looking after Gopal Narain Fadnis. The only service rendered, according to him, to Gopal Narain Fadnis was that he used to make some purchases for Gopal Narain Fadnis. This is hardly a service which can create any special relationship between Balbir Singh and Gopal Narain Fadnis. He has himself admitted that there was no other special kind of relationship between them, therefore, the reason indicated in the Will for bequeathing the property in favour of Balbir Singh also falls. 20. Another reason shown that Balbir Singh would continue the name of Gopal Narain Fadnis, is also not tenable. The testator and Balbir Singh were in no way related, they belong to different castes. It is not known how he could continue the name of Gopal Narain Fadnis. 20. Another reason shown that Balbir Singh would continue the name of Gopal Narain Fadnis, is also not tenable. The testator and Balbir Singh were in no way related, they belong to different castes. It is not known how he could continue the name of Gopal Narain Fadnis. The name of the family of Gopal Narain Fadnis could only be continued through Arti Sharma, his own grand daughter. Thus, this reason for giving his property to Balbir Singh also goes. There is thus, no reason which could explain the suspicious circumstance as to why and in what circumstances Gopal Narain chose to disinherit his only daughter and grand daughter in preference to Balbir Singh. Such nonexisting reasons recited in the Will clearly show that they were not the outcome of an independent sound mind. There was something extraneous dominating the volition of the testator that succeeded in having the recitals in the Will which, to the knowledge of the testator, were not correct and nonexistent. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon AIR 1977 Punjab 123 Smt. Rajeshwari Rani Pathak v. Smt. Nirja Guleri and others and Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others (Supra), wherein it has been held that where adequate reasons are given for disinheriting the close relatives or heirs this would be a consideration for upholding the Will. There is no dispute about the proposition laid down in the above two cases. However, we have found that in this case the reasons shown in the Will for disinheriting the daughter and grand daughter are nonexistent. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that recitals made in the Will have to be taken into consideration. If there are irrelevant matters which are recited in the Will and they are taken into account, the inference would be that it was written in suspicious circumstances. He has placed reliance upon AIR 1959 SC 443 H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others. He has also pointed out that the Will recites about the partnership between Gopal Narain Fadnis and Gaya Prasad, its dissolution as well as duration. All these facts, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, are irrelevant. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mere exclusion of the near relation would not throw suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. All these facts, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, are irrelevant. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that mere exclusion of the near relation would not throw suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. In this connection he has placed reliance upon a case reported in AIR 1985 SC 500 Satye Pal Gopal Das v.Smt.Panchubala Dasi & others. The facts of the case are altogether different. The testator had lost his son leaving behind a childless widow, the only other issue, a daughter, a so died sometime thereafter. The testator kept one Smt. Binapani as his mistress. She gave birth to a child, namely, Ramendra Narayan Das. He lived in the family. He was reared as a child of the family itself. Even the wife of the: testator and his widowed daughterinlaw, they all had love and affection for the child. The child was not stranger to the family. The testator bequeathed all his property to this child. Nothing was given to his wife and the widowed daughterinlaw. However, in the Will it was recited that the testator had given sufficient amount in cash to his wife and daughterinlaw for their comfortable maintenance and pilgrimage. In the above circumstances exclusion of the wife and widowed daughterinlaw was not considered sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the Will but in the present case the situation is different. Balbir Singh is an stranger to the family, there existed no special affection between him and the testator, no provision for daughter was made and no reason was assigned for not giving property to the grand daughter. In the case of Satya Pal Gopal Das v. Smt. Panchubala Dasi and others, the child was: born of the testator's Mistress, Therefore, on facts this case does not apply to the present case. The other case relied upon on the point is AIR 1971 SC 2236 . Smt, Sushila Devi v. Pandit Krishna Kumar. In that case no property was given to one of the married daughters by the testator. The will was executed in favour of the soninlaw who was married to the daughter who had died and to her son. It was held that exclusion of the other daughter from inheritance would not affect the genuineness of the Will. The facts and circumstances of that case also stand on a different footing. The will was executed in favour of the soninlaw who was married to the daughter who had died and to her son. It was held that exclusion of the other daughter from inheritance would not affect the genuineness of the Will. The facts and circumstances of that case also stand on a different footing. The deceased daughter and her husband had been living with the testator. At the time of her death the daughter had given the hands of her child to the testator. The soninlaw and the children continued to live with the testator even after the soninlaw had married a second time. The testator had brought up the grand child like his adopted son. The testator had also told to one of the witnesses examined, whose statement has been relied upon, that he had given some money to the other daughter and proposed to give some more amount and that he did not propose to give immovable property to her. It was also there that the soninlaw and his daughter had been financially weak and were dependent upon the testator whereas the other daughter was better off. In these circumstances it would certainly make no difference if no immovable property was given to one of the daughters. In the case reported in AIR 1974 SC 1999 Surendra Pal and others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and another, we find that the facts of that case are also different. The testator, after the death of his first wife, had married a second time. From the first wife he had five children, of whom two daughters were unmarried. The relation between the children and the father had been so strained that even at the time he died the children did not go to see him. In these circumstances it was held that if the testator had thought that he would bequeath all his property to his second wife there was nothing unnatural about it specially if he thought that after his death there would be nobody to lookafter her. The bequest was not to a stranger but to one's own wife, no doubt, excluding extremely hostile children from the first wife. Therefore, on facts this case would also not apply. The appellant, therefore, gets no help or support from the decisions relied upon by him. In none of those cases the Will was to a stranger to the family. The bequest was not to a stranger but to one's own wife, no doubt, excluding extremely hostile children from the first wife. Therefore, on facts this case would also not apply. The appellant, therefore, gets no help or support from the decisions relied upon by him. In none of those cases the Will was to a stranger to the family. One may have natural affection for grand children, wife or children born of a mistress specially when the children of testator from his wife had died. In the present case the appellant could not establish any special relationship with the testator. He has not been able to show how he was helping or caring for the testator by making some purchases from the Bazar, which is of no consequence specially when the testator had his own servant. The appellant has tried to show that the testator used to take his meals at his father's place but in the crossexamination he has stated that he could not tell whether the testator used to pay for it or not. Therefore, in the present case the Will is in favour of a person who is unconnected with the family, without there being any special affection for him and while excluding his only daughter and granddaughter, it is certainly an unnatural bequest giving rise to suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. 23. There are certain other circumstances which, though by themselves are not conclusive for doubting the genuineness of the Will but certainly strengthen the suspicion. One of such circumstances is that on the death off Sri Gopal Naraih Fadnis no information was sent to his daughter namely Smt. Salochana, by the appellant. In his statement he has said that he tried to give information to the respondent and Yogendra Sharma but they could not be found. His men had told him that they did not know her address but thereafter he has admitted that he never tried to find out the address of Smt. Salochana. This indicates the attitude of the appellant. It appears that he made no effort to inform the daughter about the death of the testator, in all probability, to usurp the movable property left by Gopal Narain Fadnis;. In the list of movable property of the testator, properly less than worth Rs. 100 has been shown which consisted of wearing apparel, household goods, beds and books. It appears that he made no effort to inform the daughter about the death of the testator, in all probability, to usurp the movable property left by Gopal Narain Fadnis;. In the list of movable property of the testator, properly less than worth Rs. 100 has been shown which consisted of wearing apparel, household goods, beds and books. It is surprising that no cash or other movable property was left. Admittedly the testator was keeping in employment one servant for himself, he could not, therefore, be in an indigent condition. In her statement the respondent had stated that the testator was possessed of several valuable items as he was a person of taste. This subsequent conduct of the appellant has some bearing on the question of genuineness of the Will specially when it is not the case of the plaintiff that his relations with the defendant were strained or were bad. The conduct of the plaintiff in not informing the only child of the testator about the death of the father is really strange and not natural or a normal conduct. The obvious reason seems to be to hide the death of testator with a view to grab the property of the deceased. Again, to show himself wholly unconnected with the execution of the Will, the case of plaintiff appellant (s that neither he himself not his father Gaya Prasad was present when the Will is said to have been executed by Gopal Narain Fadnis. He even goes to the extent that he was told about the Will by Gopal Narain Fadnis after two months of its execution. This all is not the very natural human conduct. It only appears that to establish an indifference to the execution of the Will this statement has been given. We find that Gaya Prasad had been connected with almost all the activities and transactions of the testator. Both were lining in two portions of the same house. Gaya Prasad was witness in the deed of divorce. He witnesses other documents as well executed by Gopal Narain. It is strange that he or his son, the beneficiary, would not be present when the SubRegistrar had gone to the house of Gopal Narain for execution of the Will although three of his servants were called for witnessing the document. Gaya Prasad was witness in the deed of divorce. He witnesses other documents as well executed by Gopal Narain. It is strange that he or his son, the beneficiary, would not be present when the SubRegistrar had gone to the house of Gopal Narain for execution of the Will although three of his servants were called for witnessing the document. The Lawyer, who had executed the earlier will and deeds was also introduced to the testator by Gaya Prasad. From the evidence of appellant, Balbir Singh, which admittedly contains many wrong statements, it is evident that he is not a truthful witness and can go to any extent for the purposes of making his case believable. He had even said that the character of the respondent was bad but he miserably failed to substantiate that wild allegation. He has stated that after leaving Yogendra Sharma, Smt. Salochana went away with someone else. We have already found that Smt. Salochana was married to Ramesh Chandra Sharma and marriage was arranged by her father Gopal Narain Fadnis. By making above statement he unscrupulously tried to show that Gopal Narain Fadnis was not happy with her and tried to adhere to the case sought to be made out in the Will for disinheriting Smt. Salochana. The trial court has also not believed that the testator would have gone for drafting of the Will to P.W.4, R. C. Gupta. The reasons given by him are that it is there in the statement of P. W. 5 Shambhu Nath Advocate, who had earlier been looking after legal work of the testator that he had been going to the house of Gopal Narain Fadnis in connection with the legal work. We also find that the testator did not like to go to the Office of the SubRegistrar and had earlier also got the saledeed executed at his residence. P.W. 5 Shambhu Nath was a lawyer of comparatively more seniority. P. W. 4 Sri R. C. Gupta was not living in the vicinity of the house of Gopal Narain Fadnis. He was living somewhere in Fatehganj which is not near Qaiserbagh. It was also not so that it was because of the competence of a particular Lawyer that Gopal Narain Fadnis had gone to consult Sri R.C. Gupta in Fatehganj. Sri R.C. Gupta was then having standing of only 8 or 9 years. He was living somewhere in Fatehganj which is not near Qaiserbagh. It was also not so that it was because of the competence of a particular Lawyer that Gopal Narain Fadnis had gone to consult Sri R.C. Gupta in Fatehganj. Sri R.C. Gupta was then having standing of only 8 or 9 years. He has admitted that for the purpose of drafting a Will he had considered his clerk to be more competent, therefore, he had asked his Clerk, Babu Lal, to draft the Will. It was not drafted by the lawyer. Babu Lal has not been examined to state as to what were the instructions which were given by the testator and what was told which was to be incorporated by him in the Will. In all these doubtful circumstances nonexamination of Babu Lal, Clerk of the Lawyer, assumes significance. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a case reported in AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 178 Ryali Kameswara Rao v. Bendapudi Suryaprakasa rao and others wherein it was held that it was not necessary to examine the scribe of the Will. We feel that it all depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular case. As a legal requirement it may not be necessary to examine the scribe of a Will so as to prove the same but in the circumstances of the present case it was somewhat necessary or atleast desirable that Babu Lal was also examined to lend support to the plaintiff's case which is otherwise quite doubtful. P. W. 4 R.C. Gupta has stated that Baba Lal is still alive. We are, therefore, not inclined to upset the finding of the Trial Court in this regard. 24. The circumstances of the case also indicate that Gaya Prasad had his influence over Gopal Narain Fadnis. Both were partners in the business upto 1956. They lived in two portions of the same house. Gaya prasad was a man of confidence of the testator. P.W. 5 Shambhu Nath, Advocate, has stated that he was introduced to Gopal Narain through Gaya Prasad. Shambhu Nath had been looking after the legal work of the testator for a considerable time. Gaya Prasad was a witness of deed of divorce between Yogendra Sharma and Smt. Salochana. He was one of the witnesses in the sale deed dated 25.9.58 executed by Gopal Narain Fadnis and Smt. Salochana in favour of his son, viz. Shambhu Nath had been looking after the legal work of the testator for a considerable time. Gaya Prasad was a witness of deed of divorce between Yogendra Sharma and Smt. Salochana. He was one of the witnesses in the sale deed dated 25.9.58 executed by Gopal Narain Fadnis and Smt. Salochana in favour of his son, viz. appellant Balbir Singh. He was also one of the persons who had identified Gopal Narain Fadnis in the Will dated 25.9.58 executed by Gopal Narain Fadnis in favour of Smt. Salochana and was a witness of the execution of the same. When Gaya Prasad had been connected with all such transactions his absence becomes conspicuous at the time of execution of the Will in question. At the time when the Will in question is said to have been executed admittedly then the age of Gopal Narain Fadnis was about 75 to 80 years. He had already suffered a murderous assault on him in the year 1950. He had dissolved the partnership in the year 1956 apparently for the reason that he was unable to actively participate in the business. He was not keeping good health and was ill as is clear from the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar in the Will in question, although the attesting witnesses had been made to state that he was quite hale and hearty. All these circumstances indicate, as is the case of the defendant respondent, that he had become quite dependent upon Gaya Prasad who was in a position to dominate the Will and volition of the testator. As we have observed earlier, all the above circumstances only add strength to the suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Earlier, in the year 1958 the appellant, Balbir Singh, had got a sale deed executed in his favour in respect of one of the houses owned by Gopal Narain Fadnis in Model House, Lucknow, and that transaction was carried through P.W. 5 Sri Shambhu Nath, Advocate. It appears that the property stood in the name of Smt. Salochana, therefore, the sale deed in favour of Balbir Singh was executed jointly by both namely, Gopal Narain Fadnis and Smt.Salochana. A deed of relinquishment had also been obtained from Smt. Salochana. It appears that Balbir Singh and Gaya Prasad had an eye over the immovable properties of the testator. A deed of relinquishment had also been obtained from Smt. Salochana. It appears that Balbir Singh and Gaya Prasad had an eye over the immovable properties of the testator. It also appears that Gopal Narain was not capable of normal understanding, firstly it was not at all necessary for him to have executed a Will in favour of Smt. Salochana in the year 1958 as otherwise also, in the natural course the property would have been inherited by Smt. Salochana. This thing could very well be understood by any person of ordinary understanding. He jointly executes the sale deed in favour of Balbir Singh but still obtains a deed of relinquishment from Smt. Salochana in respect of the same property. From the recital made in the sale deed executed in 1958 in favour of Balbir Singh it appears that he had also filed a suit in respect of the house transferred to Balbir Singh against Smt. Salochana for declaration in respect of that property, in his favour. To any person of ordinary understanding it would occur that it was absolutely unnecessary to file such a suit when both of them had executed a sale deed. On the same day when he transferred the house to Balbir Singh he executed a Will deed in favour of his daughter in respect of the house in question. It is clear that till 1958 the testator was quite happy with his daughter. Nothing his happened thereafter upto 1961 which could indicate that he was displeased with her. On the other hand whatever happened would have only aroused sympathy for her. The grounds indicated in the Will have been found to be nonexistent, therefore, there was no good reason to disinherit his only daughter and also to exclude the only grand child. Balbir Singh has admitted in his statement that the grand daughter of Gopal Narain Fadnis had been visiting his house. All these circumstances go to show that he had lost the power of ordinary understanding and had been executing one document or the other and filing one suit or the other, which was wholly unnecessary, through a Lawyer introduced by Sri Gaya Prasad. Gaya Prasad had him elf been witnessing all these documents. As observed earlier, these circumstances add to the suspicion which arise by bequeathing the property in favour of a stranger excluding his own child and the grand child. Gaya Prasad had him elf been witnessing all these documents. As observed earlier, these circumstances add to the suspicion which arise by bequeathing the property in favour of a stranger excluding his own child and the grand child. These circumstances also go to indicate that Gaya Prasad, the father of the beneficiary under the Will, was in a position to dominate the volition of the testator. 25. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar in the Will to the effect that the testator was ill does not lead to the conclusion that he was mentally not fit to execute the will. The kind of illness has not been indicated by the SubRegistrar. It is true that the SubRegistrar has not endorsed as to what type of illness the testator was suffering from. Therefore, from that endorsement it cannot be presumed that he was mentally not fit. On the other hand, we have already found that there was an effort on the part of the plaintiff to show that the testator was in good health. He has made his witnesses, namely, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 to state so but they are obviously wrong in view of the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar. The testator's age, health and incoherent acts in executing a Will in favour of his daughter, obtaining a deed of relinquishment from her, filing a suit for declaration of his title against his daughter in respect of the same property for which they jointly executed a sale deed in favour or Balbir Singh clearly indicate that he was a person of feeble mind and had been conducting himself incoherently. 26. In has already been noted that the original documents filed by the plaintiff including the Will in question were lost from the Court. No enquiry seems to have made to fix the responsibility as to who was responsible for the loss. The plaintiff was, however allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the will. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides, as to when secondary evidence can be led relating to documents. The plaintiff was, however allowed to adduce secondary evidence to prove the will. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act provides, as to when secondary evidence can be led relating to documents. SubSection (c) of Section 65 provides that when the original document has been destroyed or lost, in that event secondary evidence can be adduced. In the present case there is nothing to doubt about the fact that the original documents have been lost after they were filed in the court, therefore, it will be legally permissible to allow the plaintiff to adduce secondary evidence relating to those documents. However, on the basis of SubSection (c) it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that if for the loss of documents the plaintiff himself was at fault, it will not be open to him to adduce secondary evidence. We have already observed and we find that there is nothing on the record on the basis of which it can be said that the documents were lost due to fault on the part of the plaintiff, therefore, we find no merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the respondent. 27. On behalf of the appellant a long list of citation of pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts has been furnished on a variety of points. We have already referred quite a number of them in the discussion held in this earlier part of the judgment. Some cases are on the point that evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a partisan or interested witness. We do not think that it is necessary to refer to all those cases. As the statements of some of the witnesses, who have not been believed, it is not merely on the ground that they are interested or partisan witnesses, for example, in the case of attesting witness we have found that the statement is contradictory and is against the material on record. Again we find that a reference of decision has been given on the point that once the Will is proved to have been executed by a person of competent understanding the burden is on the party alleging undue influence and it is not sufficient to establish the only influence. Again we find that a reference of decision has been given on the point that once the Will is proved to have been executed by a person of competent understanding the burden is on the party alleging undue influence and it is not sufficient to establish the only influence. In this connection we may observe that the Will is being discarded mainly on the clear finding that due attestation of the Will, as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, has not been proved. Again we have recorded a finding that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will have not been dispelled by the propounder of the Will. All that we have found in respect of the mental condition of the testator and possible influence over him is that there were facts and circumstances indicating that he was a person of feeble mind and Gaya Prasad was in a position to easily influence his volition. It is only an additional circumstance which strengthens the case of the respondent about the suspicious nature of the Will. 28. In view of the foregoing discussion we find that there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. (Appeal dismissed)