JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed under section 299, Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Merta dated June 29, 1982 by which he has dismissed the petition moved under Section 278 of the Act for the grant of letters of administration with the will left by the deceased Mst. Gulab. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal maybe summarised thus.On August 28, 1970, the petitioner appellant moved a petition under Section 278 of the Act with the averments that Mst. Gulab widow of Mohan Lal Jain, resident of Nawa, was living with him since long, she died in Nawa on June 13, 1970 leaving him and his brothers Mahavir and Fateh Chand as her collaterals, Fateh Chand and Mahaveer are living separately from him since long, he looked after and served Mst. Gulab, she executed a will on June 7,1970 in his favour in respect of all her properties, the will was scribed by Chaturbhuj AW 2 and has been attested by Bal Chand AW 7, Chouthmal Jain AW 8, Shafi Mohd. AW 4 and Ganesh Kumar AW 3. It has further been averred that she has left a house situated in Nawa City consisting of one room and kitchen of value of Rs. 500/-, an amount of Rs. 2,200/-, payable by Kaluram given to him as loan and a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 3,400/- in the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nawa, gold and silver ornaments of about Rs. 900/- and cash of Rs. 419/-. It is also stated that according to her wishes, he has spent Rs. 2,000/- in performing her last rites. Usual notices and proclamation were issued. Shri Nath Raj Singhvi Advocate filed his power for and on behalf of Mahavir Prasad and Fatch Chand. Fatch Chand filed his reply admitting that he was one of her collaterals, she died on June 13, 1970, she was living in the ancestral house, she obtained a Fixed Deposit Receipt from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nawa for Rs. 3,400/- in her and his names. The remaining allegations of the petition were denied. It has further been averred that the relations between the petitioner and Mst. 3,400/- in her and his names. The remaining allegations of the petition were denied. It has further been averred that the relations between the petitioner and Mst. Gulab were strained, there was no question of leaving a will in his favour, it has been forged, it was not disclosed by the petitioner in his statement recorded in the escheat proceeding by the Tehsildar, Nawa, the alleged will has not been attested by any of his local relations or neighbours, the properties left by her have been under- valued, he (non-petitioner) was looking after her and got her treatment done by doctor and vaidhya.After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned District Judge held that the will has been forged and has accordingly dismissed the petition by his judgment under challenge.It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, his judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, he has rejected the appellant's evidence on flimsy and untenable grounds and the appellant offered good reason for not disclosing about the will Ex. I in his statement Ex. A/1 recorded by the Tehsildar, Nawa in the escheat proceeding. He further contended that the learned District Judge has seriously erred in placing reliance upon the testimony of the Hand Writing Expert Sri Krishna Charan who was biased in favour of the respondent who called and paid him. He also contended that the learned District Judge ignored the various admissions made by the opposite party-respondent in his statement. He lastly contended that the will was duly proved and there was no suspicious circumstance attending it.The learned counsel for the respondent duly supported the judgment under appeal.Before enumerating important facts and circumstances appearing on record creating great suspicion in the genuineness of the will, it would be better to quote the following observations of their lordships of the Supreme Court made in Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 SC 396 :- "A Will is one of the most solemn document known to law. The executant of the Will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the Will. The executant of the Will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the Will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would also be open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the Party." It has been observed in Rain Pyari v. Bhagwant, AIR 1990 SC 1742 at page 1743 para 2 , as under : "Mere execution of will, thus, by producing Scribe or attesting witnesses or proving the genuineness of the testator's thumb impressions by themselves was not sufficient to establish validity of Will unless suspicious circumstances, usual or special, are ruled out and the Court's conscience is satisfied not only on execution but about its authenticity." The following facts and circumstances deserve to be noticed here : 1. It is the admitted case of the appellant that escheat proceeding under the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act took place before the Tehsildar, Nawa and he gave statements Ex. A/1 before him. The notice, paper no. C46/2, was issued to the petitioner- appellant by the Tehsildar, Nawa in this proceeding. It is the admitted case of the appellant that escheat proceeding under the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act took place before the Tehsildar, Nawa and he gave statements Ex. A/1 before him. The notice, paper no. C46/2, was issued to the petitioner- appellant by the Tehsildar, Nawa in this proceeding. It runs as under : " uksfVl cuke Jh ikjley 'kkg Lk0 ukok fo"k; % Jherh xqykc ckbZ csok eksguyy ikaM~;k ds ykokfjl Qksr gksus ij mldh lEifr ij dCtk djus ckcr dsl ua0 1@70 mijksDr fo"k; esa vki dks tfj;s gktk uksfVl ds vki ds f[kykQ fjiksVZ is'k gksus ij lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki }kjk eqLekr xqykcckbZ csok eksguykyth ykokfjl Qksr gksus ij vki }kjk bl dh py oks vpy lEifRr ij dCtk dj fy;k gS crk;k gSA vr% vki bl lEcU/k esa rgjhj rFkk rdjhj lcwr fnukad 4&7&70 dh is'kh ij bl dk;kZy; esa gkftj gksdj is'k djsaA cdr 26&6&70 ,l nsodj.k rglhynkj ukok xksy eksgj iksLV dqpkeu ( jksM ftyk ukxkSj )" The petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that the will was executed by Mst. Gulab in his presence and he found it in her papers after 4-5 days of her death. Her death took place on June 13,1970. According to him, he was in possession of the will Ex. 1 when he received the said notice dated June 26, 1970 from the Tehsildar, Nawa. He admits that the Tehsildar, Nawa recorded his statement Ex. A/1 on June 26, 1970 and he did not mention about the will Ex. 1 in this statement. His explanation is that no question was put about the will by the Tehsildar and as such he did not disclose about it. It is clearly mentioned in the said notice, quoted above, that he has taken the possession of the movable and immovable properties of Late Gulab after her death and he was required to produce oral and documentary evidence on July 4, 1970 regarding his claim over these properties. It is not in dispute that the will Ex. l was not produced on July 4, 1970. No explanation could be offered by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why it was not produced on this date before the Tehsildar, Nawa. His said explanation for not mentioning about the Will Ex.1 in his statement Ex. A/1 is not at all satisfactory. l was not produced on July 4, 1970. No explanation could be offered by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why it was not produced on this date before the Tehsildar, Nawa. His said explanation for not mentioning about the Will Ex.1 in his statement Ex. A/1 is not at all satisfactory. The basis of his claim over the properties left by Mst. Gulab was the will Ex.l. If the will Ex.1 would have actually existed on the date of his appearance before the Tehsildar, Nawa, he would have definitely filed it and would have disclosed about it in his statement Ex. A/1. The non-filing of the will Ex.l and its conspicuous omission in the statement Ex. A/1 cast a serious doubt about the very existence of the will by that date and so its genuineness. 2. Admittedly, on August 1, 1960, Mst. Gulab obtained a Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 3,400/- from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Nawa in the joint name of herself and Fateh Chand respondent. If Mst. Gulab would have been living with the appellant and he was looking after her, she would have taken the appellant to the Bank and obtained Fixed Deposit Receipt in the joint name of the appellant instead of the respondent Fateh Chand. Admittedly, she did not take steps for the substitution of the name of the appellant Parasmal in place of the respondent Fateh Chand in the said Fixed Deposit Receipt. No. explanation could be offered by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why the deceased Mst. Gulab did so. 3. The appellant admits in his cross-examination that there are about 67 families of the community of the deceased Gulab in the town of Nawa. No, member of her community has attested the will Ex. 1. He further admits that her relation Balchand AW 7 was a resident of Jobner and he was a chance witness. The other witnesses i.e. Ganesh Kumar AW 3 and Shafi Mohd. AW 4, belong to other community. They were also chance witnesses. 4. The appellant Parasmal AW 1, scribe Chaturbhuj AW 2 and the attesting witnesses Ganesh AW 3 and Balchand AW 7 have deposed that the will Ex. 1 was written by. its scribe Chaturbhuj AW 2 on the DICTATION of Mst. Gulab. The will Ex. AW 4, belong to other community. They were also chance witnesses. 4. The appellant Parasmal AW 1, scribe Chaturbhuj AW 2 and the attesting witnesses Ganesh AW 3 and Balchand AW 7 have deposed that the will Ex. 1 was written by. its scribe Chaturbhuj AW 2 on the DICTATION of Mst. Gulab. The will Ex. 1 runs as under : " olh;r " eSa xqykc csok eksguyky lkgk lkfdu ukok ftyk ukxkSj dh jgus okyh gaw esjs ifr dk LoxZokl gq, djhc 25 o"kZ gks x;s gSa vkSj esjh mez Hkh djhc 65 lky dh gks xbZ gS esjs dksbZ Hkh larku ugha gS vkSj ;g csok ;g thou ;gh ukaok jgdj fcrk;k gS 'kjhj o`) gks pyk gS LokFk us tokc ns fn;k gS bl vkf[kjh thou esa vius ijk;s lcdks ns[k fy;k gS eq>s rks tSlk Hkh pkgk gS oks ikjley us pkgk gS blh us esjh lsok dh gS blh ds lkFk jgdj fnu fudkys gSa vc thou dk dksbZ Hkjkslk ugha lkWal vk;s ;k ugha vk;s esjs lkS o"kZ fudy tkus ds ckn ;k chr tkus ds ckn dgha ikjl ds HkkbZ bls rax u djsa D;ksafd ;g yksx gh esjs utnhd gh fj'rsnkj gSa esjs vUr Bhd gks tkos yksx ckr u cukosa ;g lc lksp esa ( & ) ( 9 ) bl olh;r ds }kjk ikjley dks esjh lEifRr py o vpy tks dqN Hkh esjs ej tkus ds ckn mijkUr 'ks"k jgs ekfyd cukrh gwa vkSj ejus ds ckn lkekftd fjokt ds eqrkfcd ikjl esjh lqnkj ns ;g esjh gkfnZd bPNk gS esjs :i;s 2]000@& rks dkyqjke NkkcM+k ls ekWaxrh gwa o 3400@& :i;s LVsV cSad vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj ukosa esa gS tks QrsgpUn us j[kok;s Fks ;s nksuwa jdes ikjley esjs ejus ds ckn esa ys ys oks gh esjk csVk gS] mrjknhdkjh gS fdlh nwljs dks dksbZ mtj ugha gksxk ;s olh;r tks esjh vkf[kjh olh;r gS tks jkth[kq'kh lc dqN lksp le> dj cxSj cgdk;s Qqljkos dj nh gS tks lbZ gS vki yksxksa ds lkeus esjh olh;r fy[kk i<+ lqu le> nLdr dj viuh bPNk izxV dj rkds djk nh gS eSaus blds vykok vkSj dqN u rks pkgk gS vkSj u fy[kk gS uhdys rks jn fy[kkoV prqjHkqt dkyk dh gS fd ;s eksguyky lkgk dh cgq us dsok lwa djh N% rkjh[k 7-6-70 nk0 prqjHkqt dkyk o nldr eksguyky th lkgk dh cgq csok xqykcckbZ dk NA ,l Mh& prqjHkqt dkyk n0 xqykc It is not the case of the appellant that Mst. Gulab was literate lady. A perusal of her admitted signatures Ex. A/8 taken by the said Bank on the occasion of her obtaining the said Fixed Deposit Receipt leaves no manner of doubt that she was not a literate lady and she could not put her signatures with ease and comfort. It is highly improbable from such a lady that she could dictate her will in the above quoted language. She spent her life at Nawa, a part of Marwar where Marwari is spoken. Except the words lqnkj] nksuwa and lkds no other Marwari word appears in the will Ex. 1 alleged to have been dictated by Mst. Gulab. Neither the appellant Parasmal nor the scribe Chaturbhuj nor any attesting witness has deposed that Mst. Gulab first dictated the draft of the will and from it the will Ex.l was written. Even a literate man will not be able to correctly dictate in Hindi such a will without any correction in it. This fact also goes to raise a great suspicion in the genuineness of the will Ex. 1. 5. A perusal of the will Ex. 1 shows that it has been written with one pen and ink by its scribe Chaturbhuj, the signatures of the attesting witnesses Shafi Mohd. and Ganesh m appear in two different pens and ink and the signatures of Mst. Gulab is different from all these pens and ink. 6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the court has power under Section 73, Evidence Act to compare the admitted signatures appearing on Ex. A/8 with the disputed signature appearing on the will Ex. 1. A few conspicuous and notable dissimilarities noticeable to a naked eye may be mentioned here. They are as follows. (i) 'DA:' appears in the disputed signature. It does not appear in any of the three admitted signatures. (ii) In the letter 'Ga', the end of the hook is perpendicular to the vertical line of 'Ga' in the disputed signature. It is not so in the admitted signature. On the contrary, it is parallel to the perpendicular line of 'Ga'. The hook of 'Ga' of the admitted signatures is semi-circular and in the disputed signature it is almost circular. (iii) In the admitted signatures, the rim of 'OO' starts from the end of the perpendicular line. It is not so in the disputed signature. On the contrary, it is parallel to the perpendicular line of 'Ga'. The hook of 'Ga' of the admitted signatures is semi-circular and in the disputed signature it is almost circular. (iii) In the admitted signatures, the rim of 'OO' starts from the end of the perpendicular line. It is not so in the disputed signature. On the contrary, it starts earlier from its left side. (iv) In the disputed signature, the horizontal line of 'La' is straight, but it is not so in the admitted signatures. It has curves. (v) The strokes 'Cu' and 'La' do not touch the horizontal line in the disputed signature and they touch in all the three admitted signatures. (vi) The bob of 'Ba' is semi-circular in the disputed signature and it is not so in any of the admitted signatures. It is in oval shape. Its lower end touches the vertical line at a distance from its lower end and it is not so in any of the admitted signatures. Lower end of the bob almost touches the vertical line at its end in all the admitted signatures. (vii) The shadding is heavy throughout in the disputed signature. It is not so in the admitted signatures. (viii) The size, space and arrangements of the strokes are different in the disputed and specimen signatures. (ix) The admitted signatures have tremors. Tremors are conspicuously absent in the disputed signature. The Hand Writing Expert Sri Krishna Charan NAW 8 in his statement on oath and report Ex. A/9 has given many good reasons in support of his findings that the disputed signature has not been written by the same writer who has written the admitted signatures. The appellant could not dare to produce a hand writing expert in support of his case despite the fact that the respondent clearly stated in his reply that it is a forged document. 7. It is admitted by the appellant Parasmal AW I in his cross- examination that the ration cards of Mst. Gulab and his were separate. He could not produce any satisfactory evidence to prove that Mst. Gulab Bai was living with him and he was looking after her. Admittedly, she was living in the ancestral house in a separate tenament. By mere living in the same haveli in different tenaments, it cannot be said that both i.e. appellant Parasmal and the deceased Mst. Gulab were living together. Gulab Bai was living with him and he was looking after her. Admittedly, she was living in the ancestral house in a separate tenament. By mere living in the same haveli in different tenaments, it cannot be said that both i.e. appellant Parasmal and the deceased Mst. Gulab were living together. In that case, she would have taken the appellant Parasmal to the said Bank for obtaining the said Fixed Deposit Receipt in the joint names and the ration card would have been one. 8. The respondent has filed a certified copy of the judgment of the learned Munsif, Nawa dated September 26, 1966 convicting the appellant under Section 341, Indian Penal Code. This judgment shows that the appellant locked the public Jain temple situated in Nawa town and deprived the worshipers from darshan and puja. People spend huge amounts in constructing temple for the darshan and Puja of others. In utter disregard of all jain tenets, he had the audacity to lock the temple. Fabrication of a will by such a person can well be expected. 9. The statement of the appellant Parasmal is inconsistent. Initially he says that the will Ex. 1 was not executed before him but Mst. Gulab signed it in his presence. In the cross- examination,*he says that Mst. Gulab had talked about the will with him before the scribe started writing it. There are also many inconsistencies in between the statements of the appellant's witnesses on this point. Chaturbhuj AW 2 says that Parasmal came after the will Ex. 1 was written half. The attesting witness Shafi Mohd. AW 4 says that Parasmal came after the will was entirely written. He also says that Gulab Bai put her signature on in before Parasmal came. The attesting witness Balchand AW 7 says that the writing of the will was started after Parasmal came there. 10. Ganesh AW 3 says that Shafi Mohd. AW 4 accompanied him from the gate of the house of Gulab Bai. On the contrary, Shafi Mohd. says that he alone went to the Gulab's house, two guests and the scribe Chaturbhuj were sitting there and Ganesh AW 3 came subsequently. Chaturbhuj AW 2 says that he was the first to leave Gulab's house on that day. Similarly, Ganesh AW 3 says so. Bal Chand AW 7 says that he left Gulab's house at 1 P.M. leaving all others there. Shafi Mohd. Chaturbhuj AW 2 says that he was the first to leave Gulab's house on that day. Similarly, Ganesh AW 3 says so. Bal Chand AW 7 says that he left Gulab's house at 1 P.M. leaving all others there. Shafi Mohd. AW 4 says that he left in the last but the guests remained there. Ganesh AW 3 says that he went to Gulab's house on that day to return Rs. 30/- taken from her. Chaturbhuj AW 2 says that Ganesh AW 3 came there to borrow Rs. 20/- from Mst. Gulab Bai. Parasmal AW 1 says that there is a difference in the signature of Gulab and in the writing of the will as different pens were used. He further says that Gulab took pen from some body, he does not remember from whom she took, there was one pen with the attesting witnesses with which the document was written and Shafi Mohd. had another pen. Chaturbhuj AW 2 says that Chouthmal AW 8 had a pen. He further says that he does not remember by whose pen will Ex. 1 was written and Gulab Bai put her signature on it. Ganesh AW 3 says that he used his own pen in putting his signature and he does not remember whose pen was used by Gulab to put her signature on the will. Chouthmal AW 8 says that he used his own pen to put his signature and Gulab Bai used the pen of the scribe for putting her signature on the will. Parasmal says that Bherulal Nai is not his neighbour. In para no.5 of the probate petition, the boundaries of the haveli in which the appellant and Mst. Gulab resided in different apartments have been given. Towards east, the house of Bheru Nai has been shown. This clearly shows that the appellant has no regard for the truth. Admittedly, Chouthmal AW 8 is the brother-in-law (Sadu ) of Parasmal appellant. He says that he came to Nawa to see boys for his marriageable daughters. But he could not name a single family where he saw a boy. 11. The learned District Judge has thoroughly discussed the evidence of the appellant's witnesses. He has rightly observed that the witnesses produced by the appellant are interested in him, they were chance witnesses and they are not reliable. But he could not name a single family where he saw a boy. 11. The learned District Judge has thoroughly discussed the evidence of the appellant's witnesses. He has rightly observed that the witnesses produced by the appellant are interested in him, they were chance witnesses and they are not reliable. Certified copies of the affidavit (papers No. C88/1-2) of Ganesh Ram AW 3, statement (paper No. C88/4) of Shafi Mohd. AW 4, judgment (paper No. C88/14, 15 and 16) of the learned Civil Judge Merta dated December 17, 1976, statement (paper No. C88/17) of Shafi Mohd. and the statement (paper No. C88/18) of Ganesh have been filed. They fully support the. said conclusion of the District Judge about all these witnesses.Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed with costs. *******