JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S. M. - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1975 passed by Sri R.N. Srivastava, Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, dismissing the appeal No. 171 of 1974-75, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 17.6.1974 passed by Sri Kshetrapal, Judicial Officer (Revenue), Bulandshahr in a suit under Section 229-3 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The facts which gave rise to this second appeal are that Smt. Rumall brought a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against Mahi and others. Her contentions are that she is bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the basis of a Will executed in favour of the plaintiff by one Chand Khan alias Chandan Singh who was original tenant of the suit plot. Chand Khan died on 14.2.72 and the plaintiffs name was mutated as his heir on the basis of the Will. Since the defendant also claimed to be the heirs of Chand Khan, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. The defendant Malli contested the suit denying the allegations and alleging that the Will was forged; that his name was recorded in revenue papers as the heir of Chand Khan who was his maternal uncle. In the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed issues and decreed the suit with costs. An appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was also dismissed on 7.3.1975. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the defendant respondent despite registered notice. I have, therefore, no option but to hear the case ex-parte on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Will is forged as Chand Khan being illiterate never signed and always put his thumb-impression. His second contention is that the plaintiff Smt. Rumali was shown as the grand-daughter of Chand Khan in the Will. But Smt. Rumali herself admitted before the Trial Court that she was his niece. The third submission made by him is that the plaintiff-respondent was barred by Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 inasmuch as the plaintiff respondent had not obtained probate or letters of Administration in regard to the Will set up by her. His last submission is that the suspicions surrounding the Will has not been removed by the plaintiff respondent. 4. His last submission is that the suspicions surrounding the Will has not been removed by the plaintiff respondent. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me and have also perused the record. -Firstly, I take up the question of maintainability of the suit. The plea of the plaintiff-respondent not obtaining probate or letters of administration in regard to the Will, has been raised for the first time in this second appeal. This plea was not taker up before the courts below. Notwithstanding this fact, it remains to be seen whether Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is applicable to the instant case. The provisions of this section are not applicable if the testator of the Will is a Muslim. It has been argued before me that Chand Khan was a Muslim. He subsequently became Hindu. Whether Chand Khan embraced Hinduism or not is a question of fact and is subject to an enquiry. In the absence of any plea before the Trial Court, no issue on this point was framed. It, therefore, cannot be said at this stage that Chand Khan was 'Hindu and Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925; was applicable. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant on this count is, therefore, not tenable. 5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, is also not acceptable. The courts below have given categorical findings that the legatee Smt. Rumali was not altogether stranger to the testator Chand Khan. She was the daughter of his brother. She has stated in her examination-in-Chief that Chand Khan was her grand-father and she was the daughter of Amir who according to the pedigree given in the written statement, was the son of Wazir who was the cousin of Chand Khan. She, however, stated in the cross-examination that she was the daughter of Wazir. This confused statement by itself is not sufficient to falsify the Will. She has stated in her cross-examination that she is the grand daughter of Chand Khan and daughter of Amir. The defendant has himself shown in the pedigree that Amir is the son of Wazir. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that Smt. Rumali is the grand-daughter of Chand Khan, The statement of a witness should be read and construed as a whole and not in piece-meal. 6. The defendant has himself shown in the pedigree that Amir is the son of Wazir. It is, therefore, proved beyond doubt that Smt. Rumali is the grand-daughter of Chand Khan, The statement of a witness should be read and construed as a whole and not in piece-meal. 6. Another circumstance pointed out by the appellant is that the testator Chand Khan had signed the Will thought he was illiterate. The learned Addl. Commissioner has observed that this argument was also advanced before him and it was stated that there were a number of sale-deeds on which Chand Khan had put his thumb-impression. The learned Addl. Commissioner rejected this plea on the ground that not a single sale-deed was produced to substantiate this assertion. Another circumstance pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a very little difference in age of the testator and the legatee. The former was 75 years of age and the latter 58 years old when the Will was executed. No adverse inference can be drawn if there was no considerable difference in the age of the testator and the legatee. 7. The last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the legatee might have influenced the mind of the testator because the Will was written in her presence. The learned counsel has cited a ruling reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held that if the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers on him substantial benefit, that itself generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. The question is whether the propounder Smt. Rumali has taken prominent part in the execution of the Will? The phrase 'taking prominent' part in the execution of the Will is very important. In the instant case, no doubt the propounder Smt. Rumali is admitted to be present at the time of the execution of the Will But what prominent part she played in the execution of the Will, has not been proved. I am, therefore, of the view that her mere presence is not sufficient to negativate the alleged Will. 8. In the instant case, no doubt the propounder Smt. Rumali is admitted to be present at the time of the execution of the Will But what prominent part she played in the execution of the Will, has not been proved. I am, therefore, of the view that her mere presence is not sufficient to negativate the alleged Will. 8. Their Lordships in the above noted Judgment have given a land mark ruling that the execution of the Will, onus of proof on the propounder, nature of appreciation of evidence as required under Sections 67, 68, 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, 1972 and Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Their observations are that under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his hand-writing and for proving such a hand-writing under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act, opinions of the expert and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested and it provides that such document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witnesses at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on the document in a court of law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are also relevant. Thus, the question is to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator, has to be decided in the light of these provisions. It would prima facie, be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act." 9. Let us see how far the propounder in the instant case has succeeded in proving that the alleged Will is the last Will executed by the testator. For the proper appreciation with regard to the proof of the execution of the Will, it is worthwhile to go through the Will. The document begins with the citation that the testator Chand Khan is 75 years old. For the proper appreciation with regard to the proof of the execution of the Will, it is worthwhile to go through the Will. The document begins with the citation that the testator Chand Khan is 75 years old. He has not son or daughter or wife. He is afflicted with decease and that he does not know when he may breath his last. In order to avoid, quarrel, dispute and litigation over his property, which may hurt his soul, he has decided to make settlement of his properly during his lifetime. Then, he proceeded to bequeath his property and the property inherited by him from his wife in favour of Smt. Rumali who is his grand daughter and who has been living with him since her childhood and whom he had brought up and for whom he had immense love and affection in store. The last sentence begins with the citation that he being in sound mind and health and without any pressure or influence is executing the Will voluntarily and with pleasure. The recitation itself is sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind. The courts below have relied on P.W. 2 Mehmood who is attesting witness of the Will. The learned Trial Court has observed that Mehmood had stated that Chand Khan had put his signature in his presence. Not a single question was put to this witness by the learned counsel for the defendant. Both the courts below found this attesting witness reliable and independent. The defendant has alleged that the testator Chand Khan was illiterate and that he always put his thumb-impression. The courts below have found that the onus of proving this was on the defendant which he did not discharge. 10. In the view of the discussions made above, I find no force in this appeal which is dismissed.