JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Unsuccessful applicants in an application u/s 278 of the Succession Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a letter of administration on basis of last Will executed by Ahalya are appellants in this appeal u/s 299 thereof, 2. Land in respect of which Ahalya executed the Will and registered it on 16.11.1972 before her death on 18.1.1973 belonged to Pitei Mallik younger brother of her husband. Pitei during his life time led life of an ascetic and founded a religious institution installing deity Sri Hanuman Jew. He endowed the properties to the religious institution. However, thereafter, he was unheard of for a long time for more than seven years. There was dispute in relation to aforesaid properties of Pitei. While Ahalya claimed to be in possession as successor to Pitei. Respondent claimed to be in possession as Marfatdar of Sri Hanuman Jew. Appellants were supporting Ahalya along with others. Respondent initiated a proceeding u/s 144, Cr. P.C. against Ahalya, appellants and others which was converted to a proceeding u/s 145, Cr. P.C. in which possession of respondent was found. To avoid the same Ahalya filed Title suit No. 28 of 1972 in Court of Munsif, 2nd Court Cuttack. A receiver has been appointed who is now in possession of the property. Hearing of the suit has been stayed on account of pendency of this proceeding. 3. During pendency of the suit, when Ahalya was aged about 52 years, she executed the Will (Ext. 1/a) and got it registered in office of the Sub-Registrar, Salipur in favour of applicants describing therein that while she and her husband were in separate mess and enjoying properties separately from Pitei, her husband died leaving no issue and she was enjoying properties of her husband as successor. She had also transferred some of the properties of her husband. Although Pitei was Sudra, he declared himself as ascetic to be known as Pitambar Das. Babaji and even if he had mutated some of his properties in name of Hanuman Jew, he was enjoying the same as owner. Since Pitei is unheard of more than ten years before 1970 without his whereabouts being known, she has succeeded to his estate as widow of his elder brother. On account of unnecessary trouble created by respondent she has filed the Title Suit which was pending. Since Pitei is unheard of more than ten years before 1970 without his whereabouts being known, she has succeeded to his estate as widow of his elder brother. On account of unnecessary trouble created by respondent she has filed the Title Suit which was pending. As she was aging and becoming ill at times and appellants are her nephews being of the same caste who are taking her care, are only hope for help and are looking after her affairs, she has been pleased with their actions for which she desired to make them owners of the left over properties of her husband and Pitei for which she executed the Will. It was specifically stated that after her they will continue the suit as plaintiff in her places in case the same is not finalised during her life time. 4. On death of Ahalya on 18.1.1973, appellants filed the application on 4.5.1973 describing daughter and son of deceased sister of Ahalya as her near relatives. On citation being issued, respondent entered appearance on 26.4.1974 and lodged caveat u/s 284 of the Act disclosing his interest. On objection being filed the application was registered as a suit. 5. Appellants examined both the attesting witnesses and the scribe one of the appellants has also been examined. Respondent examined four witnesses including himself and proved certified copy of the final order u/s 145, Cr. PC. 6. Trial Court found that testatrix was an old and illiterate lady. Since genuiness of Ext. 1/a the Will was seriously contested, onus lies on the propounder not only to prove validity, execution and attestation but also voluntary nature with full knowledge of its contents and the probable consequence. Intention of testatrix as stated by P.W. 1 in cross- examination was to look after Title Suit No. 28 of 1972 and manage the properties which is suggestive that intention at the time of execution was not to appoint the propounders as legatees to take effect after her demise. Relying on P.W. 4 one of the propounders in cross-examination, it was held that she never expressed her intention to bequeath her properties in their favour. Statement of scribe P.W. 2 was disbelieved since he expressed his inability to identify Ahalya and was not able to say identified her and who introduced her to him. Relying on P.W. 4 one of the propounders in cross-examination, it was held that she never expressed her intention to bequeath her properties in their favour. Statement of scribe P.W. 2 was disbelieved since he expressed his inability to identify Ahalya and was not able to say identified her and who introduced her to him. He did not say that Ahalya produced any document before him on strength of which he could with out all necessary particulars including particulars of the suit although being confronted he stated that she gave the case records of the suit to him. He did not state that he explained terms of Ext. 1/a to her. These statements was stated by trial Court to be suffering from self contradiction and did inspire confidence. P.W. 2 an attesting witness was disbelieved on the ground that it is not natural that he would accompany Ahalya to Salepur for registration of a document without knowing the nature of the document. He stated about manner of thumb impression which P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not speak. When he arranged the scribe (P.W. 1), his statement that neither he nor Ahalya gave paper to the scribe belies P.W. 2 the scribe. He also could not say why Ahalya thought of executing a Will in favour of stranger. P.W. 3 another scribe was disbelieved on the ground that Ahalya did not request him to be a witness. He was not present to say who gave instruction to the scribe. His statement that there was no paper with P.W. 1 or with Ahalya belies evidence of P.W. 2. Though he questioned Ahalya, she did not explain the reasons which compelled her to execute the Will. P.W. 4 having no personal knowledge was discarded. In view of nature of evidence of P.W. s 1 to 3 it was held that a grave doubt arises about the identity of the author of the Will (Ext. 1/a). As regards illness Ahalya, evidence of D.Ws. 1 to 3 was disbelieved. 7. Mr. S.P. Misra, Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that trial Court ought to have taken note of the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration and merely because respondent object to the grant of letter of administration, onus ought not to have been put on the propounder. Mr. 1 to 3 was disbelieved. 7. Mr. S.P. Misra, Learned Counsel for appellants submitted that trial Court ought to have taken note of the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration and merely because respondent object to the grant of letter of administration, onus ought not to have been put on the propounder. Mr. Misra submitted that a Will is to be proved like any other document with the special requirements u/s 73 of the Act, In view of registration of the Will presumption of its genuineness ought to have been accepted specially when case made out by respondent was discarded. There being no suspicious circumstances, trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 8. Mr. Mahadev Misra, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that trial Court was correct that there is no evidence that Ahalya executed the Will. Registration of the Will does not prove its genuineness or voluntary character. Bequclh in favour of strangers in preference to near relations is a strong suspicious circumstances and propounders were required to explain the same. When property endowed to a deity was intended to be taken away as personal property, Court is to suspect the genuineness. Entire purpose being to continue the litigation against the respondent, the voluntariness of the execution ought to be doubted since propounders are also hostile to the respondent. 9. Will is a document. It is ordinarily to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation provided for in Section 63 of the Act. Proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge onus of the propounder except where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. In such cases, propounder is to explain the suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the Will as genuine. Even if fraud, undue influence or coercion is not alleged in the pleading by the caveat or, if the circumstances give rise to doubts, propounder is to satisfy conscience of the Court. Suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of signature of the testator, condition of testator's mind, disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there may be other indications in the Will to show that testators mind was not free. Suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of signature of the testator, condition of testator's mind, disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there may be other indications in the Will to show that testators mind was not free. If the propounder himself takes part in execution of the Will which confers a substantial benefit on him, the same would be a suspicious circumstance. See Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Others, since deceased and after him his legal represented and others). This principle has been applied by Supreme Court as well as by this Court in various decisions and is the settled principle now to be applied to the facts and surrounding circumstances of each case found by the Court without taking observation here and there in a decision to high light the same to come to conclusion. In this respect Supreme Court has observed in the decision reported in The State of Orissa Vs. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra and Others, - It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it. In the same paragraph earlier it was observed:- A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. 10. In this background, if the validity of the Will executed by Ahalya is examined, it is to be accepted that the same is their last Will since there is no case of existence of any other Will. There cannot be any doubt that Ext. 1/a is the Will of the executant Ahalya. While propounders claim that it was executed by her, caveator disputes the same. Ext. 1/a reveals that RW. 1 Bhramar identified Ahalya before the Sub-Registrar. Will (Ext. 1/a) was filed in Court of District Judge on 7-5-1973. In objection filed by respondent there is no specific assertion that Ext. 1 .a was not executed by Ahalya but some one impersonated her. Ext. 1/a reveals that RW. 1 Bhramar identified Ahalya before the Sub-Registrar. Will (Ext. 1/a) was filed in Court of District Judge on 7-5-1973. In objection filed by respondent there is no specific assertion that Ext. 1 .a was not executed by Ahalya but some one impersonated her. P. W. 1 Bhramar who identified Ahalya was not suggested that he identified some other lady as Ahalya P. W. 3 asserts that she knows Ahalya and has been seen her executing the Will which he attested. There is no suggestion to her that Ahalya was impersonated by another lady. RW. 4 stated that two days after registration, Ahalya handed over the ticket to him and on that basis he received the Will. All these statements and surrounding circumstances lead me to believe that Ahalya signed the document Ext. 1/a and finding of trial Court that it is doubtful whether Ahalya executed the same is not acceptable. 11. Next question for consideration is whether Ahalya had sound mind to have the capacity to execute the Will. Ext. 1/a itself indicates that Ahalya was conscious that she was ailing at times and is aging. Illness by itself is not sufficient to presume that a person has lost sound state of mind which is normal condition of a human being. He who claims that a person lost sound state of mind is to prove the same by bringing into record the contemporaneous surrounding circumstances relating to that person from which Court can draw an inference that such person lost his sound state of mind. Respondent adduced some oral evidence about the actual state of health of Ahalya. Trial Court has rightly rejected the same and came to conclusion that Ahalya had the sound state of mind. On the materials available, I confirm this finding. 12. It is next to be considered whether Ahalya understood that he was executing the Will. P.W. 1 Bhramarbar Sahu stated that Ahalya told him seven to eight days before that she would execute the Will. Ahalya requested him to go to Salipur for executing the Will. Will (Ext. 1/a) itself indicates endorsement of the scribe that after scribing the document as per instruction of Ahalya, the document was read over and explained to her and she put her mark after understanding the same. Ahalya requested him to go to Salipur for executing the Will. Will (Ext. 1/a) itself indicates endorsement of the scribe that after scribing the document as per instruction of Ahalya, the document was read over and explained to her and she put her mark after understanding the same. Sub-Registrar at the time of registration has put the rubber stamp that execution was admitted by Ahalya before him. This would normally be sufficient to accept that Ahalya under-stood the contents of the document. 13. Will requires attestation u/s 63 of the Act, RWs. 1 and 3 are attesting witnesses. Section 63 required attestation to be made where the witnesses have seen the executant put his mark on the document and they have put their respective marks in presence of the executant. P.W. 1 stated that after the contents of the Will were read over, Ahalya put her L.T.I. and also touched a pen. He and P.W. 3 witnessed her putting LT.I. and so they signed in her presence. P.W. 2 the scribe stated that after he finally drafted the document Ahalya subscribed her L.T.I, in his presence and in presence of attesting witnesses. Witnesses also signed in her presence. P.W. 3, the other scribe stated that Ahalya put her LT.I. in his presence after it was read over and explained. So he signed and P.W. 1 also signed. All the requirements of attestation are proved in this case. Statements are to be read in context of a case. It is not the suggestion to any of the witnesses that they were not present of the execution and are in different sittings. Thus, I am satisfied that RWs. 1 to 3 saw Ahalya putting her LT.I. and they signed in presence of Ahalya. 14. In spite of all the formalities, where there are suspicious circumstances, propounders are to clarify the same. Suspicious circumstances pressed to discard the document are:- j (i) Deprivation of near relations like sisters, son and daughter; (ii) Active part of P.W. 1 for execution of the Will; (iii) P.W. 3 being a chance witness, his presence is doubtful; and (iv) Will in favour of a complete stranger to the family. 15. As regards deprivation of near relations it is to be remembered that the property bequethed did not belong to Ahalya. It was the property of her husband's brother. 15. As regards deprivation of near relations it is to be remembered that the property bequethed did not belong to Ahalya. It was the property of her husband's brother. Normally, on death of Ahalya, it would revert back to the agents of her husband. Thus, the near relations are not the natural successors to Ahalya. Added to it from evidence of both parties, it is clear that the properties bequethed were endowed to deity Hanumanji. Both parties claim to be managing affairs of the deity. Respondent has been successful in litigation in respect of possession for which Ahalya had to approach the civil Court and the suit is pending. In such circumstances, it is natural for Ahalya to ignore respondent who is fighting litigation against her. Appellants were supporting Ahalya in the litigation. Ahalya had the Worldly knowledge of dealing with properties inasmuch as she had transferred land succeeded from her husband as is reflected in the Will itself. In such surrounding circumstances, when she had the feeling that on her death, property would remain in possession of respondent as the suit cannot continue any further, she bequethed the properties to appellants so that the suit can be contested on merits. It is natural in my view and is not a suspicious circumstance. 16. Next suspicious circumstances is the witness P.W. 3 being an attesting witness. In this respect, it would be better to remember that there is no prohibition for a chance witness becoming attesting witness. P.W. 3 is known to P.W. 1 whose assistance was being taken by Ahalya for execution of the document. If P.W. 1 would have got any interest in the execution of the document, his active part might have been a suspicious circumstance. When P.W. 1 has no interest and he took active part in assisting Ahalya to go to Salepur, arranging the scribe and the other witnesses, identifying Ahalya before the Sub-Registrar, evidence of P.W. 3 in respect of the background in which he became the attesting witness is not suspicious. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, when the Will has been proved as any other document, special requirement of Section 63 of the Act is satisfied and there is no suspicious circumstance, application of appellant is to be allowed. 18. In result, appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed