JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.—At the time of admission of appeal, the following question of law was formulated— "Whether the interpretation of the Will shows that the testator had individual share in the legacy to the legatees ?" 2. One Babu Ram son of Nihala owned and possessed the suit property. He died in the year 1973 without leaving any male issue. His wife had pre-deceased him Maya Devi, respondent, is his only daughter. On December 4, 1967, he executed a Will, Ex. P-L, which was got registered by him with the Sub-Registrar, Una, on the same day, bequeathing his movable and immovable property in favour of three grandsons of his brother Piara Singh. One of the legatees, under the Will, namely, Shakunt Raj, a son of Jagdish Singh son of Piara Singh died on June 25, 1970. After the death of Babu Ram, mutation of inheritance No. 4812 to his estate was entered by the revenue officials, on the basis of a Will, in favour of three legatees, although one of them had pre-deceased Babu Ram but at the time of attestation, on the objection of the daughter of the deceased, mutation was instead attested in her favour as if Babu Ram had died intestate. This prompted the two legatees, namely, Kewal Singh and Yog Raj and Smt. Shanti Devi the widow of third legatees to file a suit in the trial Court for grant of a decree for possession of the suit property on the ground that the deceased had died testate by having executed a Will bequeathing his movable and immovable property, therefore, his daughter, Maya Devi, respondent had neither inherited the same, nor had acquired any right, title or interest therein The order of attestation of mutation in her favour was challenged being bad in law. 3. The suit was contested by Maya Devi, defendant-respondent, who denied the deceased having executed any valid Will in favour of the three legatees. In the alternative, it was claimed by her that the Will propounded by the plaintiffs was not a valid Will and the same was the result of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence It was specifically contended in the written statement that it was just possible that the plaintiffs, in the garb of getting a general power of attorney executed, might have got the thumb impression of Babu Ram on the Will. Defendant also pleaded that there was no valid ground in bequeathing his properties in favour of the three legatees by ignoring her claim to the property. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following two issues:—. "1. Whether Babu Ram deceased had executed a valid Will in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the Will was got executed as a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as alleged ? OPD." 4. The trial Court on the basis of discussion of evidence found that the Will Ex. P-l was validly executed by deceased Babu Ram and it further held that no fraud and mis-representation was practised upon Babu Ram, nor the execution of the Will was the result of any undue influence. As a result of these findings, suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court upheld the findings of fact as regards due execution of the Will holding that conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on the facts and in the circumstances of the case were correct. Further, it after noticing the fact of death of one of the legatees prior to the death of the executant of the Will held that by virtue of the provisions of section 107 of the Indian Succession Act, the share of the deceased legatee had become un-disposed and accordingly modified the judgment and decree of the trial Court, The two legatees, namely, Kewal Singh and Yog Raj were held entitled to 2/3 share out of the suit property and the respondent-defendant Maya Devi, daughter of the deceased was held entitled to the remaining 1/3 share. Feeling aggrieved, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been challenged in this Second Appeal by the widow of third legatee. Respondent Maya Devi has also preferred cross-objections against the findings of the Courts below with respect to the due execution of the Will. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been challenged in this Second Appeal by the widow of third legatee. Respondent Maya Devi has also preferred cross-objections against the findings of the Courts below with respect to the due execution of the Will. 5. Firstly, while dealing with the cross-objections filed by respondent No. I and to find out as to whether the Courts below were right in concluding that the Will had duly and validly been executed by the deceased and the same was not the result of mis-representation, fraud or undue influence and further whether all the suspicious circumstances attending to the due execution of the Will had been satisfactorily explained by the propounder, it would be necessary to examine the oral evidence adduced by the parties and also to glance through the Will, Ex. P-l, which is in vernacular and the following is its translation: — “Babu son of Nihala son of Sucheta, aged 80 years, caste Rajput, am a resident of village Bhadsali, Tehsil and Police Station Una. My wife has since died. I have one daughter namely Maya Devi and I have solemnised her marriage after providing sufficient dowry and gifts. She lives at her in-laws house. Shakunt Raj, Kewal Singh and Jog Raj sons of Jagdish Singh son of Piara Singh caste Rajput, resident of village Bhadsali, Tehsil and Police Station Una are real grandsons of my brother Piara Singh. In away they are my grandsons also. I am being looked after by them in all respects. They are obedient to me, therefore, I have deep love and affection for all of the three and I wish for their welfare. I have grown old and there is no certainty of life. Therefore, I make this Will and write it down that after my death all of my lands, houses, ail types of Abadi, any rights of redemption, all my deposits and my all other rights and privileges, that is, my entire movable and immovable properties located everywhere shall devolve in equal shares on the aforementioned three, namely, Shakunt Raj Kewal Singh and Jog Raj. Neither my daughter, nor any one else shall have any claim over my aforesaid ancestral property. This Will has been made today dated 4-12-1967 for the purpose of record." 6. Neither my daughter, nor any one else shall have any claim over my aforesaid ancestral property. This Will has been made today dated 4-12-1967 for the purpose of record." 6. The contents of the Will, as translated above, would show that a specific reason has been assigned for depriving the only daughter, the present respondent, of any share in the property and additional reason has been given for bequeathing the property in favour of the three legatees, being the grandsons of his brother Piara Singh. It has been re-asserted, as would appear from the contents of the Will that the deceased wanted the entire property to be inherited, after his death, only by the grand-sons of his brother, by emphasising the fact that his daughter Mava Devi would have co interest in the property of any kind This assertion was made after the deceased had provided that the three legatees would get equal shares in the property The Will was scribed by Ganpat Rai, Document Writer, Una, who has appeared as PW 2 According to this witness. Babu Ram accompanied by Bidh Singh, Sarbaraha Lambardar and Nasib Singh came to him. He (Ganpat Rai) was known to Bidhi Singh only On instructions received from Babu Ram, the Will was scribed by him in the presence of the aforementioned three persons and thereafter the same was read over and explained to the executant, in the presence of the witnesses, who though was aged 80 years but was in a sound and disposing state of mind, admitted the contents thereof and put his thumb-impression as a token of his acceptance. The two attesting witnesses thereafter put their respective signature and thumb-impression in the presence of each other and in the presence of the executant as also in his presence. He also made an endorsement on the Will as scribe and relevant entries were made by him in his register. Bidhi Singh Sarbaraha Lambardar has also appeared as PW-3. He has also proved the due execution of the Will by the deceased and further testified the fact that Babu Ram presented the Will for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Una, and the same was registered by the said officer. Bidhi Singh Sarbaraha Lambardar has also appeared as PW-3. He has also proved the due execution of the Will by the deceased and further testified the fact that Babu Ram presented the Will for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Una, and the same was registered by the said officer. Dharamvir Chadha, Sub-Registrar, appeared as PW 3 and proved the endorsement of registration on the back of the Will Ex P-l. He further stated that the Will when presented before him for registration by Babu Ram, it was read over and explained by him to the presenter who admitted the contents thereof in his presence and in the presence of attesting witnesses and as a token of acceptance the executant as well as the attesting witnesses put their thumb impression and signature, respectively, in the presence of each other and in his presence The executant was stated to be in sound and disposing state of mind. The other attesting witness Nasib Singh was not examined as by the time when the suit of the plaintiffs came up for evidence, be had died. PWs 1 and 2, who had testified about the sound and disposing state of mind of the executant at the time of execution of the Will and at the time when the same was presented for registration, have not been cross-examined by the defendant to the effect that he was not in a disposing state of mind. Defendant has also not put her case of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence to these two witnesses. However, during cross-examination of PW 3 Bidhi Singh, Sarbaraha Lambardar, an attempt was made by the defendant to assert that the deceased was not in a sound and disposing state of mind but the witness denied the suggestion and asserted that the deceased was of sound and disposing state of mind when the Will was executed by him The case, as set up in the written statement, that in the garb of getting general power of attorney executed, thumb impression of deceased was procured on the Will, was not at all put to any of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff. The father of the legatees. The father of the legatees. namely, Jagdish Singh appeared as PW 4 and stated that he was present at the time when the Will was scribed and has testified the fact that during the life time of the deceased he was being looked after by him and his sons. His daughter, Maya Devi, after her marriage was not at all looking after and maintaining the deceased. Defendant Maya Devi appeared as DW 1. She expressed her ignorance that the deceased had executed any Will. It was admitted by her that Bidhi Singh, Sarbaraha Lambardar and Nasib Singh were the residents of the same village. Both of them were Rajputs and were from the Baradari of the deceased. She had been married for the last twenty-five years and was residing in her in-laws house. Though she stated that she had been visiting her father but she admitted the fact that it was Jagdish Singh, father of the three legatees, who was looking after the deceased and providing food and clothing to the deceased. Nothing was stated by her in her statement that the execution of the Will was the result of fraud, mis-representation or undue influence. DW 2 Chaman Lal, though produced by defendant has admitted that the deceased was in sound and disposing state till about a fortnight prior to his death. Similarly, DW 3 Prabha Singh has also stated in the same terms. Both of them have also stated that the deceased was having good and cordial relations with his brothers sons. 7. The above is the crux of the entire evidence produced by the parties in the case. Genuineness of the Will was questioned on the ground that the only daughter had been deprived of the deceaseds property, thereby making the Will as invalid. No doubt that the testator had not bequeathed any part of his property to her daughter and had also specifically pointed out in the Will that she would have no right, title or interest in any part of the property after his death but this alone would not make the Will invalid. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, the Will appears to be genuine and natural. 8. The mode of proving a Will does net ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of its attestation. On scrutiny of the entire evidence, the Will appears to be genuine and natural. 8. The mode of proving a Will does net ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of its attestation. In such matters, the onus is always on the propounder and in the absence of any suspicion, the proof of testamentary capacity and the signatures of testator as required by law is sufficient discharge of the onus. The fact that the father of the legatees was present at the time of execution of the Will also cannot be said to be a suspicious circumstance attending to the due execution of the Will when nothing has been extracted from the statement of the scribe, the attesting witnesses and the Sub-Registrar that the recitals in the Will were not correct and the reasons assigned by the testator for net providing any share to his daughter was false and incorrect. It stands proved not only from the plaintiffs evidence but also from the evidence of defendant as also from the statement of defendant that it was Jagdish Singh, the father of the legatees, who alone was looking after and maintaining the deceased and also providing him food and clothing. The Courts below in these circumstances, were right in coming to the conclusion that the deceased had executed a valid Will while in disposing state of mind. The cross-objections, as such, have no force. 9. Now turning to the question of law. It was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that on true construction of the Will, Ex P-l, the intention of the testator was that his property after his death should be enjoyed alone by the grand-children of his brother Piara Singh, therefore, in the event of death of one of the grand-sons, although, it was mentioned in the Will that the grand-sons would share the same equally, the same should be held to have been inherited by the surviving legatees. In support of the submission, learned Counsel referred to section 106 of the Indian Succession Act and placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Surareddi v. Venkata SubhareddU AIR 1960 AP "68. In support of the submission, learned Counsel referred to section 106 of the Indian Succession Act and placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Surareddi v. Venkata SubhareddU AIR 1960 AP "68. The further submission of the learned Counsel was that the intention of the testator being clear, full effect thereto was to be given by holding that on the death of testator by virtue of the Will the property should devolve on the two surviving legatees. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent-defendant on the other hand, contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, section 106 of the Indian Succession Act has no applicability to the present case. The provisions of law, which would be attracted, are section 107 and section 108 of the said Act, which provide that if a legacy is given to the legatees, in words which show that the testator intended to give them distinct shares and if any legatee dies before the testator, then the legacy as was intended for him shall fall into the residue of the testators property and ultimately it will go as undisposed and by applying these principles no interference is called for in the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court vide which the share of the deceased legatee has rightly been held to have been inherited by the respondent as undisposed. 11. Sections 74 to 111 contained in Chapter VI of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) deals with the construction of the Will as also the lapse of legacies. Two cardinal principles are to be observed in the construction of the Wills, namely, the rule of law and rule of construction. The rule of law is one which takes effect when certain conditions are found, although the testator may have intended an intention to the contrary, whereas, the rule of construction is one which points out that what a Court should do in the absence of express or implied intention. The primary duty of the Court, in such like situation, is to ascertain the intention of the testator from the Will itself by reading it as a whole without indulging in any conjecture or speculation. The primary duty of the Court, in such like situation, is to ascertain the intention of the testator from the Will itself by reading it as a whole without indulging in any conjecture or speculation. While doing so, the Court must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship and the probability that he would use words in particular sense. This has somewhat been described in a picturesque phrase the Court is entitled to put itself in the testators arm chair". This rule of construction can be found embeded in section 75 of the Act, which reads as follows: "75. Inquiries to determine questions as to object or subject of Will.— For the purpose of determining question as to what person or what property is denoted by any words used in a Will, a Court shall inquire into every material fact relating to the persons who claim to be interested under such Will, the property which is claimed as the subject of disposition, the circumstances of the testator and of his family, and into every fact a knowledge of which may conduce to the right application of the words which the testator has used." 12. This provision of law deals with the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in aid of construction of Wills and by virtue of section 57 of the Act is applicable to a Will made by a Hindu with the modifications specified in Clause 5 of Schedule III of the Act, In case legatees have correctly been described in the Will, no further inquiry is necessary and no extrinsic evidence will be admissible, but if a person claiming as a legatee is not the one mentioned in the Will or if the person described in the Will has died or the property described has ceased to conform to the description, further evidence may be admitted to discover some other subject existing at the date of the Will to which the words may refer as understood by the testator. 13. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that on a proper construction of the Will, alongwith the surrounding circumstances, that the testator intended to make a joint bequest involving joint tenancy in favour of legatees and the bequest made by him cannot be considered having been made in severalty so as to hold that the legatees were to take it as tenants-in-common. According to learned Counsel intention can be gathered from the contents of the Will wherein it is stated that the testator had already provided for his daughter Maya Devi at the time of her marriage and since the father of legatees was maintaining him, therefore, it was further stated by him that grand-sons of his brother Piara Singh were to enjoy the property after his death in equal shares and no part thereof should go to his daughter. 14. On the question as to when a Hindu testator makes a bequest, whether the legatees takes it in severalty or as joint tenants, there has been a catena of decisions of Privy Council and of various High Courts, which all were considered in Sanjeen Reddy v. Ahliandathammal and another, ILR (1968) 1 Mad 138. It was held by the Madras High Court that prima facie view is that the legatees take a bequest in severalty even if they constitute a Hindu joint family and those who contend in favour of joint tenancy have to show some clear foundation for it in the terms of the Will. Even according to Mitakshra school two or more persons inheriting Jointly take the estate as tenants-in-common except in some of the cases where they are living as members of a joint family and succeeding as heirs to the separate or self-acquired property of their paternal ancestor. The question was considered by the Supreme Court in C N. Arunachala Mudaliar v C. A. Muruganatha Mudaliar and another; AIR 1953 SC 49\ wherein after the consideration of the text on the subject and variant opinions of the High Court, it took the view that the question was primarily one of the intentions of donor or the testator to be gathered from the terms of the deed of gift or Will. If there are no clear words describing the kind of interest intended to be given, the Court has to collect the intention from the language of the document taken alongwith the surrounding circumstances in accordance with the established canons of construction. It further held that the material question in such cases would be whether the testator really wanted to make a gift of the property to his son or the apparent gift was only a integral part of a scheme to partition the same but there is no presumption that he intended the one or the other. It further held that the material question in such cases would be whether the testator really wanted to make a gift of the property to his son or the apparent gift was only a integral part of a scheme to partition the same but there is no presumption that he intended the one or the other. Even otherwise, the Hindu testator is perfectly at liberty like any other testator to create a joint tenancy in favour of two or more legatees either by explicit language or by the fact that the surrounding circumstances justified that inference alone as his true intention in the Will. The testator in this case by having provided that the three legatees would take bequest in equal shares would be deemed to have intended that the same be enjoyed by them in 1/3 share each, that is in severalty and not as joint tenants. The language of the Will Ex. P-l is clear. The probable intention of the testator can also be gathered therefrom that he intended to make bequest in favour of the three grand-sons and that too in specified shares. I have no doubt in my mind that this testament must be interpreted as a bequest in severally. If this interpretation is to prevail, it would be indisputable that upon the death of testator Babu Ram, Sbakunt Raj, one of the legatees having pre-deceased him, the devolution would follow under section 107 and not section 106 of the Act. Section 106 provides for devolution where the legacy is joint one and similarly section 107 provides for devolution where the same is in severalty. Section 107 cannot be interpreted so as to apply in case of joint legacy. Part of section 107 of the Act which runs to the effect that "in words which show that the testator intended to give them distinct shares of it" have to be strictly interpreted, that is, there must be actual expression in the Will justifying this inference and it is not a warranted rule of interpretation to draw such an inference either by mere implication or by the addition of words to the Will which are not there. When Will Ex. P-l clearly shows that the testator intended to give to the three legatees distinct shares of his property, the bequest has to be taken as having been made in severally. 15. When Will Ex. P-l clearly shows that the testator intended to give to the three legatees distinct shares of his property, the bequest has to be taken as having been made in severally. 15. On a true interpretation of the Will and correctly applying the law, as discussed above, it must be held that the Will Ex. P-l shows that the testator had provided individual shares in the legacy to the three legatees and Shakunt Raj having pre-deceased Babu Ram testator, the legacy as was intended for him fell into the residue and the trial Court was right in holding that there was nothing wrong in inheriting the same by the daughter of the deceased testator. The question of law, as such, is answered in the affirmative. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The cross-objections, in view of the aforementioned discussion, are also dismissed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is affirmed. 17. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.