Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J. This appeal arises out of the suit for partition, O.S.No.19 of 1982, the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram. The plain-tiff in the suit is the appellant the defendant in the suit is the respondent in the appeal. Convenience suggests that we to the parties as per the nomenclature in the suit. 2. The plaintiff and the defendant stand in the relationship of the mother- daughter-in-law. In respect of the properties, which the son of the plaintiff (and) who the husband of the defendant obtained in a partition in the family on 22.10.1971, the stated to have executed a Will dated 27.4.1978, marked in the case as Ex.B-5 in favour the defendant. This Will is being put forth by the defendant to stultify the claim for a asked for by the plaintiff. But for the Will, the plaintiff would be entitled to such a Hence the primary question that arose for consideration before the court below was whether the defendant could rely on the Will Ex.B-5 to non-suit the plaintiff. On evidence, oral and documentary, placed before it, the court below came to the conclusion that the Will is a genuine document; its due execution was proved; and it has got upheld. The result is the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the court below. This obliged the plaintiff to prefer this appeal. 3. Mr.S.Sethurathnam learned counsel for the plaintiff, would attack before us genuineness of the Will Ex.B-5. He would point out certain features to show that there enough suspicious circumstances to discredit the Will Ex.B-5. Before we deal with them, worth while to recapitulate the principles governing proof of Wills as recognised by Judicial precedents, including those of the highest court in the land, which principles run as follows: "(i) The onus probandi lies in every case on the propounder of the testament, so that bound to satisfy the conscience of the court that the instrument is the last Will of a free capable testator. (ii) If the propounder takes an active part in the preparation of the Will under which he a benefit, that is a circumstances which would excite the suspicion of the court and the vigilance and jealous scrutiny before accepting the Will; and the same principle will extended to what may be termed suspicious circumstances or factors in general, of course, attendant upon the execution of the Will, or in some clear manner related to that issue, It is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court by dispelling those suspicions, in the light of the evidence and its probabilities and if he fails to do so, and the conscience the court is not satisfied, the court will decline to accept the Will. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator’s mind, the dispositions made in, the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances, of there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testator’s mind was not free." A Bench of this Court to which one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) was a party, had occasion advert to the above principles in Lakshmi Animal v. Amirdhammal, L.P.A.No.5 of 1977, dated 213.1983. 4. Mr.S.Sethurathnam, learned counsel for the plaintiff, would submit that the Will Ex.B written up in a most odd manner in that number of pages are half-written; or one written or quarter-written. We have perused the Will Ex.B-5 and we find that what learned counsel for the plaintiff states is the factual position. But the question is, from this are we to straightaway infer that the Will Ex.B-5 is a fabricated one? 5. In proof of the Will, three witnesses have come to court on behalf of the defendant. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the attestors and D. W.4 is the scribe. It is true, of them D.W.3 is none else than the father of the defendant. With regard to the writing of the Will Ex.B-5, the scribe D.W.4 has been cross-examined. D.W.4 admitted that pages 4 and 5 are not fully written up. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the attestors and D. W.4 is the scribe. It is true, of them D.W.3 is none else than the father of the defendant. With regard to the writing of the Will Ex.B-5, the scribe D.W.4 has been cross-examined. D.W.4 admitted that pages 4 and 5 are not fully written up. But from the bare fact that the writing up of the Will is not full in all the pages, we not able to spell out any suspicious circumstances as such, in the absence of other materials adding up and pointing out to the same. Such adding up materials is lacking in the present case. There was no positive suggestion put to either D.W.4 or D.Ws.2 and 3 that the Will was written up on papers already bearing signatures; though the learned counsel for plaintiff did make an attempt to put forth such a suggestion before us. Learned counsel the plaintiff even went to the extent of saying that D.W.3, the father of the defendant, is of desirable character and he is a man of doubtful conduct, and he must have fabricated Will Ex.B-5. We have been taken through the evidence of D.W.3. There is a bald suggestion that all of them joined together. impersonated and brought about the Will. If the case now put forth by the learned counsel that it was D.W.3, who fabricated the Will had any substance, a positive, categoric and specific suggestion ought to have been put to D.W.3 while he was in the box. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also ventured to submit that the signature of D.W.3 the Will Ex.B-5 tallied with the signatures found therein as those of the testator. Learned counsel for the plaintiff wants us to draw an inference that D.W.3 fabricated Ex.B instance of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, we did make a comparison of the signatures. There are apparent differences and distinct features between the two signatures, and could not say that the signatures are of one and the same person. Further, even suggestion to this effect has not been made to D.W.3 while he was in the box. With reference to the due execution of the Will, we are convinced that the evidence of attestors D. Ws.2 and 3 and of the scribe D.W.4 amply makes out the feature. Further, even suggestion to this effect has not been made to D.W.3 while he was in the box. With reference to the due execution of the Will, we are convinced that the evidence of attestors D. Ws.2 and 3 and of the scribe D.W.4 amply makes out the feature. No feature, which we could take note of as casting suspicion in our mind and militating against the truth, validity and genuineness of the Will Ex.B-5, has been made out. It has not been brought in evidence that the propounder of the Will Ex.B-5, namely the defendant, either by herself or through her father D.W.3, took an active part in the preparation of the Will Ex.B have been taken through the evidence of D.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and we find that their evidence natural and it deserves acceptance as has been done by the court below. The Will Ex.B passes through the tests, concerning the proof of Wills and it must be held to be a genuine document. This being our conclusion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Considering the relationship between the parties, we direct the parties to bear their costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.