Y. K. Sabharwal ( 1 ) SHRI Jeevan Singh died on 24/11/1981 at R-569. New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner is his son whoseeks probate of the Will purported to have been executed by Sh. Jeevansingh on 23rd November 1961. Under tr the Will the petitioner has beenappointed as sole executor and all moveable and immoveable propertieshave been bequeathed in his favour. ( 2 ) SOME undisputed facts : Petitioner Kushbir Singh is son of Sh. Jeevan Singh from his first wife who had died before Jeevan Singh hadmarried Dr. Deep Kaur. The marriage between Jeekvan Singh and Dr. Deepkaur was solemnised in the year 1954. Dr. Deep Kaur is widow of Sh. Jeevansingh. Mr. Haricen Singh is his daughter. Ms. Harleen Kaur was born on1. 1. 1961. Dr. Deep Kaur and her daughter Ms. Harleen were living ath-479, New Rajinder Nagar. New Delhi, when Jeeven Singh died. Kushbirsingh alongwith his wife was living in House No. P-569, New Rajindernagar, New Delhi, and Jeevan Singh bad also died in the said house. 38 ( 3 ) DR. Deep Kaur and Ms. Harleen Kaur havopposed the grant ofprobate. Both mother and daughter in reply to probate petition have deniedthe factum and validity of the Will. The opposition of mother and daughteris contained in Paras 4 and 7 of their reply to the petition which reads asunder:para 4 "para No. 4 of the petition is denied. It is incorrect thats. Jeevan Singh made the Will in question, as alleged. Theanswering respondents deny the factum and validity of thewill in dispute. Para 7 Para No. 7 of the petition is not admitted correct. It is denied that Shri Paras Ram Kaira who purports to havemade verification, declaration, has done so or that he purposely and validly attested the Will or that the Will has beenattested, according to law. The respondents deny that thewill was properly executed. It is denied that S. Jeevan Singhsigned the Wiil, as alleged, when he was in possession of fullsenses or that he understood what it was about". ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-" (1) Whether the deceased Jeevan Singh validly executed the Willin question dated 23. 11. 1961 as his last Will and testament ? (2) Whether the deceased was possessed of a sound disposingmind at the time of the execution of this Will. (3) Relief. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-" (1) Whether the deceased Jeevan Singh validly executed the Willin question dated 23. 11. 1961 as his last Will and testament ? (2) Whether the deceased was possessed of a sound disposingmind at the time of the execution of this Will. (3) Relief. " ( 5 ) THE petitioner has examined three witnesses. PW-1 Dr. Rajkumar Seth and PW-2 Mr. Paras Ram Kaira are the two attesting witnessesof the Will Ex. P-l. PW-3 Sh. S. L. Batra is a Chartered Accountant who isstated to have handed over the Will to the petitioner after death of Jeevansingh. The respondents/objectors have themselves entered the witness box,dr. Deep Kaur RW-1 and Ms. Harleen Kaur RW-2. Respondents havealso examined one Sh. Jagdish Chander Seghal (RW-3) and Sh. P. C. Mehra (RW-4 ). It would be convenient to take up all the issues together. ( 6 ) THE evidence led on behalf of the petitioner as to execution andattestation of the Will and how the petitioner came in possession of the Willis briefly this. ( 7 ) PW-1 Dr. Seth has deposed that Jeevan Singh had signed the Willex. P-l in his presence and he was in perfect health and sound disposingmind when the Will was executed. The Will contains a certificate from Dr. Seth to the effect that "i have examined S. Jeevan Singh today. He is inperfect health and is of sound disposing mind. " Dr. Seth has further deposed that in the year 1961 he was working as Assistant Surgeon Gr. I. Willingdonhospital, New Delhi, and he retired on 30/11/1986 as Medicalofficer of Health, N. D. M. C. He claims to have known Jeevan Singh sincechildhood. It has also been deposed by Dr. Seth that the other attesting witness Sh. P. R. Kalra, PW-2 was present at the time of execution of the Willand he had also signed in presence of Dr, Seth as well as in the presence ofs. Jeevan Singh. ( 8 ) PW-2 Paras Ram Kaira has deposed that Jeevan Singh was knownto him for more than 50 years before his death and both belonged to the39same village/town. He has further deposed that Jeevan Singh and he hadbeen working as Assessors in the Sessions Courts in Pakistan. Mr. Kalrahas also deposed that on request ofjeevan Singh he had attested thewill Ex. He has further deposed that Jeevan Singh and he hadbeen working as Assessors in the Sessions Courts in Pakistan. Mr. Kalrahas also deposed that on request ofjeevan Singh he had attested thewill Ex. P-l and that Jeevan Singh was of sound disposing mind at the timewhen he executed the Will, and had signed the Will in his presence as alsoin the presence of Dr. Seth. ( 9 ) PW-3 Sh. S. L. Batra has deposed that he had been practising as achartered Accountant in Delhi since 1948 ai. d was advisor to Jeevan Singhin regard to income-tax matters. Mr. Batra has further deposed that Jeevansingh was a director of M/s. Jubliee Highway Transport Co. Ltd. atpathankot and be was the auditor of the said company, since its inception. It has also come in the statement of Mr. Batra that S. Jeevan Singh used tovisit his office and residence quite often. Mr. Batra has furtherdeposed thatjeevan Singh had told him during one of his visits that he wanted to executea Will and had given Mr. Batra instructions to prepare a draft. Mr. Batrasays that he had given a rough draft to Mr. Jeevan Singh and thereafter hebrought Will Ex. P-l duly executed and deposited it with Mr. Batra. Thewitness claims that Jeevan Singh had instructed him to hand over the Will tohis son Kushbir Singh after his (Jeevan Singh s) death and that as per Jeevansingh s desire the Will was handed over to the petitioner after Kirya ceremony of Jeevan Singh. The witness further says that Will Ex. P-l remainedwith him in the same condition in which it was deposited with him by Jeevansingh. it is common case of the parties that Mr. Batra had been the income-tax advisor of S. Jeevan Singh as also of Dr. Deep Kaur. Dr. Deep Kaurhas deposed that she started paying income-tax in the year 1964 or 1965 andmr. Batra was her income-tax advisor. ( 10 ) MR. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends thatdue execution and attestation of Will Ex. P-l stood proved by the statementof two attesting witnesses and the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate ofthe Will in question. ( 11 ) BEFORE considering the suspicious circumstances on which reliancehas been placed by Mr. Vobra, learned counsel for the objectors, well settledprinciples bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to provea Will, may be stated. P-l stood proved by the statementof two attesting witnesses and the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate ofthe Will in question. ( 11 ) BEFORE considering the suspicious circumstances on which reliancehas been placed by Mr. Vobra, learned counsel for the objectors, well settledprinciples bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to provea Will, may be stated. The Supreme Court in an elaborate judgment inh. Venkatachala Iyenger v. D. N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , speakingthrough Gajendragadker J. laid down the following propositions :" (1) Stated generally, a Will has to be proved like any other document,the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction ofthe prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof ofother documents, so in the case of proof of Wills, one cannotinsist on proof with mathematical certainty. (2) Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a Will to beattested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required bysection 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least hasbeen called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there bean attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the courtand capable of giving evidence. (3) Unlike other documents, the Will speaks from the death of thetestator and therefore the maker of the Will is never available fordeposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be40 executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in thedecision of the question whether the document propounded to bethe last Will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onuswhich lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged onproof of the essential facts which go into the making of thewill. (4) Cases in which the execution of the Will is sorrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shakysignature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition ofproperty, the propounder himself taking a leading part in themaking of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefitand such other circumstances raise suspicion about the executionof the Will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the Will bears the signature of thetestator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state ofmind and memory at the time when the Will was made. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the Will bears the signature of thetestator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state ofmind and memory at the time when the Will was made. or thatthose like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinheritedbecause the testator might have bad his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes theinitial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstancesattendant upon the execution of the Will excite the suspicion ofthe court, the propounder must remove all legtimate suspicionbefore the document can be accepted as the last Will of thetestator. (5) It is in connection with Will, the execution of which is surroundedby suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of thejudicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that indetermining the question as to whether an instrument producedbefore the court is the last Will of the testator, the court is calledupon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspiciouscircumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the Will hasbeen validly executed by the testator. (6) If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc inregard to the execution of the Will, such pleas have to be provedby him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will may raise a doubt asto whether the testator was acting of his own free Will. And thenit is a past of the initial onus of the propounder to remove allreasonable doubts in the matter. (See Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and others, (1977) I Supreme Courtcases 369 ). ( 12 ) IT is not necessary to refer other judgments relied upon by learnedcounsel for the parties as most of the said judgments either follow or reiteratethe aforesaid propositions of law. ( 13 ) WHEN the Will Ex, P-l was executed Jiwan Singh was about 48years old. Ex. P-l is a one page hand written document. ( 12 ) IT is not necessary to refer other judgments relied upon by learnedcounsel for the parties as most of the said judgments either follow or reiteratethe aforesaid propositions of law. ( 13 ) WHEN the Will Ex, P-l was executed Jiwan Singh was about 48years old. Ex. P-l is a one page hand written document. It has only oneparagraph which reads as under :"i, Jiwan Singh S/o S. Sher Singh Baweja resident of House No. P-569new Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-5 with sound and disposing mind by41this my last Will (WILL) bequeath and devise all my moveable andimmoveable property, whatsoever and wheresoever, to my only sonkbushbir Singh absolutely and appoint him sole executor of this mywill. In witness whereof I have signed this hereunderontbe23rddayofnovember 1961. sd/-Jiwan Singb Baweja23. 11. 61 ( 14 ) AFTER the above passage there is an endorsement about the testatorand attesting witnesses having signed it in presence of each other. Thereafterthere is a note said to have been made by PW-1 Dr. R. K. Seth that "i haveexamined S. Jiwan Singh today. He is in perfect health and is of sounddisposing mind. " Then it contains signatures purporting to be of theattesting witnesses. ( 15 ) I may also notice few material facts which have come mostly inthe statement of Dr. Deep Kaur. After marriage of JiwanSingh and Dr. Deep Kaur in the year 1954 at Pathankot, she stayed with him at his houseat Pathankot, upto 1956. Petitioner was away to Tehran before theirmarriage and was expected to come to India in February 1957. From theend of 1956 Dr. Deep Kaur, on being asked by her husband started livingat his Rajinder Nagar House. Petitioner came to India in early 1957 and. went back to Tehran after his engagement. Petitioner came back to India inthe year 1958 and after his marriage he again went back to Tehran with hiswife. Dr. Deep Kaur, during this period, continued staying along in houseno. R-569, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Petitioner finally returned toindia in the year 1960 and started living in the same house. Dr Deep Kaursays that she stayed in that house till early part of 1963 when she alongwithher daughter shifted to another house No. H-479, New Rajinder Nagar whichshe claims that her husband got her on rent, though according to PW-3,mother and daughter were living separately at the time when Jiwan Singhhad executed the Will Dr. Dr Deep Kaursays that she stayed in that house till early part of 1963 when she alongwithher daughter shifted to another house No. H-479, New Rajinder Nagar whichshe claims that her husband got her on rent, though according to PW-3,mother and daughter were living separately at the time when Jiwan Singhhad executed the Will Dr. Deep Kaur admits that even when she had goneaway and started living separately, Jiwan Singh continued living with his sonkhushhir Singh, the petitioner. It also stands established and rather admittedthat further and son were jointly doing business which was of finance, transport and batteries etc. Dr. Deep Kaur and her daughter did not make anypositive statement about the educational qualifications of Jiwan Singhthough it was vaguely stated by Dr. Deep Kaur that 1 do not think S. Jeevan Singh was even matriculate. She, however, admitted that he used towrite English also though she stated that he used to correspond in Urdu andused to write to her in Gurmuki only. Four recurring accounts in the bankhad been opened during the lifetime of Jiwan Singh so that deposits therefrom could be utilised for marriage of daughter Harleen Kaur and twodeposits had matured during the lifetime from which he had started buyingarticles for marriage. The total amount received from the said accounts wasabout Rs. 80. 000. 00. The husband and wife had never any joint account inany bank. Jiwan Singh used to sign in English and his signatures wereobtained by counsel of Dr. Deep Kaur from the bank. None have, however,been filed on record. She also admits that she had some correspondenceexchanged between her and the Bank about the locker which she said Jiwansingh had in Punjab and Sind Bank, but no such correspondence was filed onrecord. . The case of petitioner appears to be that Jiwan Singh had no such42 bank locker. Dr. Kaur admitted that in 1982 petitioner showed her the Willand thereafter she never visited his house. PW-3 Mr. Jagdish Cbandersegbal, one of the witnesses examined by the objectois, states that Dr. Kaurtold him after I or 10 months of death of Jiwan Singh that one Will executed by Jiwan Singh bad been found and in ibat Will nothing bad been left tothem. Dr. Kaur did not state that the Will Ex. PW-3 Mr. Jagdish Cbandersegbal, one of the witnesses examined by the objectois, states that Dr. Kaurtold him after I or 10 months of death of Jiwan Singh that one Will executed by Jiwan Singh bad been found and in ibat Will nothing bad been left tothem. Dr. Kaur did not state that the Will Ex. P-l was not in the handwriting of Jiwan Singh or that it was not signed by him though her daughterdid make such a statement. The daughter said that her father know Englishbut not correct English. She, however, admitted that if some draft writtenin English was given to him, he could copy it out. ( 16 ) BEARING in mind the aforesaid facts and proposition of law. Iwill now consider the various circumstances which, according to Mr. Vohra,learned counsel for the objectors, are suspicious and remain unexplaineddisentitling- the petitioner to grant of probate. Learned counsel submitsthat it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to dispel all doubts andexplain all suspicious circumstances. There is no doubt about this generalproposition. It is also well settled that even if there is no plea of suspiciouscircumstances raised by the objector still the propounder of the Will has tocompletely dispel all doubt and explain all suspicious circumstances andsatisfy the conscious of the court. There is also no doubt about the wellsettled principle of law that the initial onus of proving the Will is very heavyon the propounder of the Will. I may, however, add that evidence in thepetition was recorded more than 25 years after the execution of the Willex. P-l and this fact cannot be ignored while considering the objections tothe grant of probate and considering the circumstances said to be suspicious. As held by the Supreme Court no hard and fast or inflexible rules can belaid down for the appreciation of the evidence and which of the circumstances would be regarded as suspicious cannot be precisely said orexhaustively enumerated. It is no doubt true as contended by the objectorsthat they were totally disinherited and petitioner is the sole beneficiary underthe Will but this fact by itself cannot be treated as suspicious circumstanceas there is nothing on the record to establish that petitioner had taken anypart in the execution of the Will let alone prominent part. The disinheritence by itself cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance. The disinheritence by itself cannot be treated as a suspicious circumstance. The twocurrents of natural affection and settlement of properites can flow indistinct channels, and that the change in the course of the one need notnecessarily have any effect on the direction of the other (See : Naresh Charandas Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta and another, AIR 1955 SC 363 ). Assuming that disinheritence of mother and daughter is a suspiciouscircumstance the disinheritence stands completely explained in the facts andcircumstances of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner was the only son ofthe testator. Admittedly, the objectors were shifted to another house, may be,at a short distsnce of a mile or so and testator continued to live with his sontill his death in the year 1981. Ordinarily, if a person finds that his wife andchildren are not pulling on well he would ask the children and their familymembers to shift to some otherhouse and himself would continue to stay inthe same house with his wife. In the preseat case, however, that did nothappen. According to Dr. Deep Kaur, she with her daughter shifted toanother house in early part of 1963. According to Batra they were livingseparately when the Will was executed. Dr. Deep Kaur has also stated thatsince end of 1956 she is living at Delhi whereas Jiwan Singh was living atpathankot. This explains the state of mind of Jiwan Singh even if it beassumed that she started living separately from early 1963 and was not43living separately when Will was executed. I also cannot shut my eyes to thefact that when Will was executed S. Jeevan Singh was about 48 years old,he knew that his wife was well off. She was a practising doctor. He couldhave well thought that he will solemnise the marriage of his daughterhimself during his lifetime and that may have led him to disinherit her. Itis not unknown of Indian parents to deprive daughters of any share in theirestate. It has also come. on record in the statement of Dr. Deep Kaur thatthe petitioner finally returned to India in January 1960 and was lookingafter the business jointly with his father. It also stands proved that fourrecurring deposits in the banks bad been opened so that amounts of thesaid deposits could be utilised on the marriage of Ms. Harleen Kaur. Theamount received on maturity of those account was about Rs. 8u. OOO/. It also stands proved that fourrecurring deposits in the banks bad been opened so that amounts of thesaid deposits could be utilised on the marriage of Ms. Harleen Kaur. Theamount received on maturity of those account was about Rs. 8u. OOO/. Twoof the deposits had matured during lifetime of Jiwan Singh and the amountso received had been used by him for purchase of articles for marriage ofthe daughter. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the argument that Jiwan Singb loved her daughter and would not have disinheritedher or atleast would have made some provision for her marriage is of noconsequence. The facts taken as a whole show that disinberitence of wifeand daughter is not a suspicious circumstance and in any case it has beenduly explained. ( 17 ) LEARNED counsel for the objectors then contended that the effectof keeping the Will with Mr Batra raises serious doubts about theauthenticity of the Will. The best person with whom the Will should havebeen kept, according to the counsel, was the petitioner himself, being thesole beneficiary and executor of the Will. It is well known that the Willsare generally kept with persons of trust. It is also well known that Willsare generally not kept with the beneficiaries. It has been proved that Mr. Batra was the Chartered Accountant of Jiwan Singb and he used to meethim quite often. It is not unknown to keep the Wills with the professionslike Chartered Accountants. It also stands proved that Mr. Batra was alsohandling the income-tax matters of Dr. Deep Kaur as well. The objectorshave not been able to shake the testimony of Mr, Batra in any manner. ( 18 ) THE petitioner had produced in evidence both the attestingwitnesses besides Mr. Batra. It is not necessary that in every case a handwriting expert should be produced. There is nothing suspicious particularly whenthe objection on this score is vague. It may also be noticed that even Dr. Deep Kaur did not depose that the writing and signatures on the Will werenot of her late husband though her daughter did make such a statement. Under the facts and circumstances of the case there was nothing unnaturalin not examining the handwriting expert. Even the objectors did not care toproduce a handwriting expert though Dr. Deep Kaur admitted that shebad taken the specimen signatures in English of Jiwan Singh from the bank. Under the facts and circumstances of the case there was nothing unnaturalin not examining the handwriting expert. Even the objectors did not care toproduce a handwriting expert though Dr. Deep Kaur admitted that shebad taken the specimen signatures in English of Jiwan Singh from the bank. ( 19 ) IT was next contended that testator did not know Englishlanguage and the Will was in English. However, it stands proved even fromthe evidence of the objectors that Jeevan Singh sometimes used to writeenglish though objectors claim that it was gramatically wrong and spellingswould also be wrong. Ms. Harleen Kaur admitted that her father knewenglish but added the rider that he did not know much correct English. Sheadmitted that if some draft written in English was given to her father he wasin a position to copy it out. Both mother and daughter did not make anypositive statement on educational qualification ofjiwan Singb but made only44 and vague statement. The objectors had not even pleaded in their reply thatjiwan Singh did know English and were satisfied with the vague plea ofdenial of proper execution of the Will. In their reply the objectors said that it is denied that S. Jeevan Singh signed the Will as alleged when he was inpossession of full sense or that he understood all it was about. Admittedlytestator used to sign in English. As observed above, the objectors hadobtained English signature of testator from Bank but did not file it on recordof the case. The evidence is also to be appreciated in the context of thefact that a rough draft of the Will had been prepared by Mr. Batra andhanded over to Jiwan Singh Another discrepancy pointed out by theobjectors that Dr. Seth in his evidence had stated that the subject matter ofthe Will was not copied by Jiwan Singh from any other paper but he hadscribed this Will in his own handwriting is of not much relevance consideringthat the evidence was beingrecorded more than 25 years afrer the execution of the Will. Further more considering that it is short Will of few linesonly, the testator could have remembered that contents of the draft. ( 20 ) IT was nobody s case that when the Will Ex. P-l was executedtestator was not in possession of full senses. Further more considering that it is short Will of few linesonly, the testator could have remembered that contents of the draft. ( 20 ) IT was nobody s case that when the Will Ex. P-l was executedtestator was not in possession of full senses. No argument was put forth onbehalf of respondents that Jiwan Singh was not of sound disposing mind atthe time of execution of Will or any time even thereafter. It stands provedthat Jiwan Singh was of sound disposing mind when he executed the Willex. P-l. He lived for about 20 years after executing the Will. ( 21 ) WITH regard to the circumstance that legal terminology has beenused in the Will, in my opinion, there is no such particular legal terminologyused in the Will. Further, from the evidence of PW-2, it appears thattestator must had some knowledge of this terminology as it was stated thathe had been working as Assessor in Sessions Court in Pakistan. I do notfind any merit in this circumstances. ( 22 ) PW-1 Dr. Seth in his evidence stated that he had performed theclinical examination of Jiwan Singh before giving a certificate on the Willabout his being of perfect health and sound disposing mind. The argumentof Mr. Vohra was that the witness was going too much out of way to helpthe propounder of the Will and there was no question of clinical examinationof S. Jiwan Singh as such examination was unnecessary before givingcertificate of perfect health and sound disposing mind. The note of thedoctor on the Will does not show the clinical examination but only says thatthe doctor had examined Jeevan Singh and after 25 years doctor states thathe had performed clinical examination. The argument in my view is not ofmuch consequence while determining the due execution and attestation ofthe Will. ( 23 ) BOTH the attesting witnesses have deposed that they knew Jiwansingh since long and their statement that they did not know the relationsof S. Jeevan Singh with his family members is not of any relevance. Suchfacts can co-exist. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner aretrustworthy and their testimony has not been shaken in any manner. Theaforesaid circumstances, on which gieat reliance has been placed by theobjectors are not suspicious circumstances and, in any case, these circumstances stand duly explained. Suchfacts can co-exist. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner aretrustworthy and their testimony has not been shaken in any manner. Theaforesaid circumstances, on which gieat reliance has been placed by theobjectors are not suspicious circumstances and, in any case, these circumstances stand duly explained. I may also notice that the objectors have notpleaded exercise of any undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of45execution of the Will. The petitioner has been successful in discharging theonus placed on him. The fact that Jeevan Singh during his life-time waslooking after his wife and daughter and had taken for them the house onrent or that he was prosecuting the eviction petition in respect of the saidrented house do not in any manner affect the due execution and attestationof the Will particularly keeping in view the factum of mother and daughterhaving been provided separate accommodation since 1963. It has also comein evidence that the objectors had cordial relations with the petitioner evenafter death of S. Jiwan Singh and relations of petitioner with Dr. Deepkaur became sore only after about 8 or 10 months of death of S. Jiwansingh when petitioner showed the Will executed by Jiwan Singh and in thatwill nothing had been left for the objectors. Inspite of the said knowledgethe objectors did not think it necessary to either take positive pleas in theirreply/objections or to produce any other evidence to cause any doubt muchless serious doubt about the validity of the Will. ( 24 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that thepetitioner has successfully proved the valid execution and attestation of thewill Ex. P-l. Thus, both the issues are answered in favour of the petitioner. I accordingly, direct that probate be granted to the petitioner with a copy ofwill dated 23/11/1961 (Ex P-l) attached subject to the petitionercomplying with all legal requirements including filing of the administrationbond. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Probate granted.