Honble KAPUR, J. — This Civil Misc. Appeal relates to grant of probate to a will executed on 6.9.1969 by Ayodhya Bai. The appellants were petitioners before the District Judge, Ajmer and their application for grant of probate of the will was rejected mainly on the ground that several suspicious circumstances surrounded the alleged will. The objector respondents are adopted son of Ayodhya Bai and his natural father, who is also the brother-in-law of deceased Ayodhya Bai. (2). There were three brothers Bai Kishan, Ram Kishan and Gopi Kishan. Bai Kishan died at the very early age leaving behind his widow Ayodhya. They had no child hence in 1964 Ayodhya Bai adopted Praveen Kumar son of her husbands brother Gopi Kishan. Ayodhya Bai devoted her time by staying at Pushkar, Ajmer and Indore while Praveen Kumar stayed at Ajmer. The appellant No. 1, who is the brother of Ayodhya Bai is living at" Indore and Ayodhya Bai used to stay with him while at Indore. Ayodhya Bai died on 14.4.1979 at Pushkar at the age of approximately 60 years. She was living there all alone and none of the relation; were by her side when she died. The last rites were performed by Praveen Kumar and on 13th day a list of articles were prepared which were found in the house of deceased Ayodhya Bai at Pushkar. Besides the articles of every day use in this list Ex.A.l, it is mentioned that there was a clock, spectacles, religious books and other papers. Two silver bangles, three copies of a will dated 27.03.1969 and three copies of a will dated 6.08.1969. This list has been signed by both the appellants, respondents and a couple of other persons. It is the will dated 6.08.1969 for which the appellants applied for grant of probate. (3). In this will Ayodhya Bai has narrated that there has been a partition and one Kothi at Madar-ka-naka, Ajmer and one house Nohra Choti Basti, Pushkar have fall to her share in partition while one shop in Nala Bazar, Ajmer, one Haveli at Ajmer and open plots at Ajmer are her stridhan Dhan property. She has bequeath all this property alongwith her movable and cash to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur and has also appointed two executors of the will who are the appellants Shyam Das and Dhan Singh. She has bequeath all this property alongwith her movable and cash to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur and has also appointed two executors of the will who are the appellants Shyam Das and Dhan Singh. It is also written in this will that the property may be given to Geeta Press or it may be used for any other religious or social purposes as may be decided by the executors. (4). The objectors in their reply denied this will and stated that Praveen Kumar was the son of the deceased Ayodhya Bai and was in lawful possession of all the properties. His marriage was also performed by Ayodhya Bai and it was alleged that the petitioner Shyam Das was in invited to the deceased and he had made all attempts to gain dishonest and unfair advantages in the matter. He contested the execution of the will and pleaded that it was not a genuine document. (5). On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : — (i) Whether the will dated 6.9.1969 was duly executed by Smt. Ayodhya Bai ? (ii) To what relief. (6). The appellants examined P.W. 1 Shymadas, P.W. 2 Arun Kumar, attesting witnesses and P.W. 3 Ashok Kumar, who is another attesting witness to the will. For the objectors, Praveen Kumar himself appeared in the witness box and examined D.W. 2 Gopi Kishan and D.W. 3 Rameshwar Lal. Before coming to the conclusion which have been arrived by the learned District Judge, Ajmer the evidence in the case may be briefly looked into. On the day the will was executed namely, 6.9.1969, Ayodhya Bai was at Indore where she had gone in connection with the marriage of her niece. According to him, Ayodhya Bai had a draft of the will with her and she wanted to execute the same after making certain corrections. Then according to her instructions, Arun Kumar got the will typed and thereafter it was approved by Ayodhya Bai which was readover in presence of all and on her acceptance she signed the will and thereafter Ashok Kumar and Arun Kumar signed it at her request. He has specicifcally stated that they attested her signature in presence of the witness and the witnesses have signed in presence of the testator. P.W.2 Arun Kumar and P.W.3 Ashok Kumar have deposed about the execution of the will and attestation by them. He has specicifcally stated that they attested her signature in presence of the witness and the witnesses have signed in presence of the testator. P.W.2 Arun Kumar and P.W.3 Ashok Kumar have deposed about the execution of the will and attestation by them. The defence witnesses have denied the execution of the will by Ayodhya Bai and also deposed that the appellant Shyamdas did not disclose about the will in question soonafter the death of Ayodhya Bai and also stated that the same has been fabricated at a later stage. They have deposed that there was no will in the papers found at the house of Ayodhya Bai but Shyam Dass had taken three copies of the will from Arun Kumar and he has forged them to enter in the list on the ground that decision about the same would be given by the court but they should be entered into the list prepared at that time. Praveen Kumar has stated that he was not prepared to sign the list Ex.A.l as the copies of the will had been also mentioned in it but at the instance of his brother and uncle he signed the list. Praveen Kumar got married in March, 1969 and after his marriage he never stayed at Pushkar with Ayodhya Bai. Praveen Kumar himself has not stated anything about the partition between his mother and him. D.W.2 Gopi Kishan had stated that no will was found in the papers in the house of Ayodhya Bai at Pushkar but the will had been brought by Shyam Dass and at his instance this was entered into the list Ex.A.l. Both the witnesses have stated that Ayodhya Bai used to sign only as Ayodhya and did not aid Bai after her name. However, no letter written by her or any other document executed by her have been produced to establish this fact. The witnesses have also stated that Ayodhya Bai knew only to sign her name and could barely read. All of her working was looked after by D.W.3 Rameshwar Lal. However, no letter written by her or any other document executed by her have been produced to establish this fact. The witnesses have also stated that Ayodhya Bai knew only to sign her name and could barely read. All of her working was looked after by D.W.3 Rameshwar Lal. D.W.3 Rameshwar Lal did not give any explanation about the recovery of three copies of will entered into the list Ex.A.l but he was asked about it in cross- examination and he has deposed that he signed the papers because no will was found in the house but Shyam Dass brought the will from his possession and in order to avoid the quarrel Uttam Chand and this witness decided to enter it in the list and that whatever dispute would be there between the parties it shall be settled in the court. (7). The learned District Judge, Ajmer rejected the evidence of the appellants mainly on the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. First of all it was signed by Ayodhya Bai and not Ayodhya, no evidence about the partition prior to the execution of will, why property has been bequeathed to the Geeta Press, Gorakhpur when it could be given to any one in Pushkar itself, she was not literate person so as to approve the draft of the will, why young persons were made attesting witnesses to the will and why the will was not produced before 13th day after the death of Ayodhya Bai etc.’ (8). The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the will dated 6.09.1969 was executed by Ayodhya Bai at Indore in the presence of two witnesses who attested the same in her presence and at her instance and the evidence in this respect is prefect hence, the execution of the will stands proved and it cannot be found to be suspicious only because the benefitiory is Geeta Press, Gorakhpur or because the original will was produced at a later date or it bears the signatures Ayodhya Bai and not Ayodhya. It is argued that even the testator can put his signature or thumb impression or any mark in order to show that the will has been executed by her, and if the signatures are proved as of the testator it would not make any difference as to actually what has been written by her in the signatures. It is argued that even the testator can put his signature or thumb impression or any mark in order to show that the will has been executed by her, and if the signatures are proved as of the testator it would not make any difference as to actually what has been written by her in the signatures. According to him, when there is evidence that Ayodhya Bai signed the will then it would not make any difference that she has signed as Ayodhya Bai. (9). It is contended that 5-6 copies of the will were typed and the original will was kept by the appellant Shyam Das while some copies of the same were taken by Ayodhya Bai with her and these were not the copies which were found in her belongings at Pushkar while the original was brought by appellant Shyam Dass from Indore lateron. According to him, the copies recovered from the Pushkar house of Ayodhya were entered into the list Ex.A.l and it is wrong to say that this entry was made without actually these documents being recovered from the house. Ex.A.2 mentions from where each article has been recovered such as from the big box, from the small box, wide box etc. In the list it is mentioned that three copies of the will dated 6.1.69 were found in the wide box. Three copies of another will dated 27.03.1969 were also found at the same place. Hence, it is argued that soonafter the death the appellant Shyam Dass could not produce the original will as it was at Indore but the copies which were lying with Ayodhya were recovered from her house and the late production of the original will did not make the case of the appellants false. (10). The learned District Judge has not been able to accept the fact that Ayodhya Bai bequeathed her property to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur with which she had no connection instead of giving her property to her son. Had the property been given to Praveen itself then too, it would have been under standable, according to the learned District Judge. (10). The learned District Judge has not been able to accept the fact that Ayodhya Bai bequeathed her property to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur with which she had no connection instead of giving her property to her son. Had the property been given to Praveen itself then too, it would have been under standable, according to the learned District Judge. For this the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there could be no explanation or answer for every querry because it was the wish of the testator to give the property to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur and why she chose this particular institution could be explained by her alone. (11). It is also contended that dis inheritance of an adopted son will not make the will suspicious so as to hold it to be not proved. (12). On the other hand, the learned counsel , for Respondents has contended that the appellants have not led any evidence to prove the partition between Ayodhya Bai and her son so as to make the basis of the will a probable fact. It is also contended that D.W. 3 Rameshwar used to look after all the work of Ayodhya Bai and the will dated 6.9.1969 ought to have been in his knowledge. Not disclosing the will at the earlier occasion is also said to be a suspicious fact. It is argued that this Court should not lightly interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge when it is a question of appreciation of evidence and the learned District Judge has given good reasons for arriving at his conclusions. (13). The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Rajmata Smt. Sushila Kumari and another vs. Maharaja Shri Arvind Singh and Another (1) wherein the suspicious circumstances related to the execution of will were examined and it was held that absence of registration ¦ was not a suspicious circumstance. The will being type written and not holograph was not suspicious circumstance. Appointment of person formerly guilty of embezzlement as executor was not again a suspicious circumstance. Deposit of will in Bank and not with District Registrar was insignificant in view of the clear testimony of Manager of Bank, no material to indicate that executors and propounders exercised undue influence on the testator, then the circumstances cannot have the effect of positive evidence in support of the validity of the will. Deposit of will in Bank and not with District Registrar was insignificant in view of the clear testimony of Manager of Bank, no material to indicate that executors and propounders exercised undue influence on the testator, then the circumstances cannot have the effect of positive evidence in support of the validity of the will. In Girdhari Lal Vs. Prem Prakash (2) it was held that the mode and burden of proving a will is not different from proving any other document. Proof of testamentary capacity and signatures of/at testators are sufficient to discharge the burden. It was also held that in absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof about execution of the will and signatures of the attestators as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. In Gangadas vs. Mool Chand and another (3) it was observed that delay in moving application for probate is not sufficient to hold that the will is a forged document. (14). On the other hand, the learned counsel , for Respondents has placed reliance on Smt. Kamla Kunwar vs. Ratan Lal and others (4) in order to argue that burden lies upon the propounder of the will and it is for him to remove doubts introduced by proved facts surrounded the execution of the will. In Ramniwasi vs. Madanlal (5) there were suspicious circumstances as two wills were executed at the same time. It was held that there was heavy burden on the propounder. In Gorantla Thataiah vs. Thotakura Yenkata Subbaiah and others (6) it was discussed as under as to how the courts should proceed when there are suspicious circumstances : — "In a case in which a will is prepared under circumstances which raise the suspicion of the court that it does not express the mind of the testator it is for those who propound the will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances musr be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What are suspicious circumstances musr be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If, however, the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers substantial benefits on him that itself is a suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the will and in appreciating the evidence in such a case, the court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious manner." In Ramchandra Rambux vs. Champabai and others (7) it has been held that where the will is executed in suspicious circumstances, the propounder should remove the suspicion and where the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of will, which conferred a substantial benefit on him, then it should be treated as a suspicious circumstance. In Kalyan Singh vs. Smt. Chhoti and others (8) it was held that person claiming right on basis of will prove its genuineness. Where the will constitutes another person as sole legatee totally disinheriting the testators wife and the will is produced before the court or before the authority after a long lapse of time, despite having opportunity to produce earlier then in absence of explanation, the suspicious circumstances does not stand explained and the will is not acceptable. In Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others (9) it was held that the propounder of the will has to explain the suspicious circumstances surrounded in execution of the will. I have considered the decision cited on behalf of both the sides and the evidence as well as the arguments advanced in this case. In this case the appellants are merely executors of the will and they are not legatees. Had they been the legatees in the will, the situation would have been different. Here the legatee is Geet Press, Gorakhpur. Hence, the circumstances, that the will was executed at Indore at the house of appellant No. 1, where the testatrix was not residing permanently would not become a suspicious circumstance so as to cast doubt upon the evidence led about the execution of the will. Why the testatrix chosed to give all her property to Geeta Press is not also a fact far to understand. She was a woman of religious mind. She preferred to stay at Pushkar, which is a religious place. She had religious books and naturally she must be reading them. Why the testatrix chosed to give all her property to Geeta Press is not also a fact far to understand. She was a woman of religious mind. She preferred to stay at Pushkar, which is a religious place. She had religious books and naturally she must be reading them. Her own son stated that she knew the Ramayan by heart. Geeta Press, Gotakhpur prints religious books and for a person of religious mind to be attracted towards such a press so as to give away all her property to this press would not amount to a suspicious circumstance. She could have given her property to any institution in Pushkar but if she decided to give the property to Geeta Press, Gorakhpur in preference to the institution at Pushkar, the will would not become a forged document. (16). The circumstance, that the will was made known to the others only on the 13th day of the date of death of Ayodhya Bai, has also been considered to be a suspicious circumstance. However, it only discloses that the appellants do not want to raise disputes about the property soonafter the death of Ayodhya Bai and have waited till the copies of the will were found amongst the papers of the deceased. When the list Ex.A.2 discloses that copies of two wills, three copies of each were recovered from the papers, then there is no reason to believe that these copies were not found amongst her papers but were supplied by the appellants and they forced the entry in the list Ex.A.2. Even earlier will dated 27.03.1969 has not been produced. Had it been produced it would have shown as to why it became necessary for Ayodhya Bai to execute another will. It would also go to show whether that will was used as a draft for preparing subsequent will by making adequate changes. If the respondent No. 1 was the benefitiory under this earlier will there was no reason for him to withheld the same. Moreover, it was , for Respondents to show that there was partition in which the property bequeathed came to the share of Ayodhya Bai. If she was not having the ownership rights over this property then the respondent could have stated as to who was/were the owners. D.W. 1 Praveen Kumar has not even denied the fact of partition of the property. If she was not having the ownership rights over this property then the respondent could have stated as to who was/were the owners. D.W. 1 Praveen Kumar has not even denied the fact of partition of the property. In the present case, the appellants have been named as executors and they are not directly involved with the family of the deceased and the respondents. Hence, it was , for Respondents to give the details about the property of the late husband of Ayodhya Bai and the manner in which it came to the share of the family members. (17). No doubt the attesting witnesses to the will are relatives of the appellant No. 1 and are of young age but that by itself would not become a suspicious circumstance. Why should old people be made attesting witnesses to a will and who knows they will not be able for giving evidence when the question of proving the will arises. Again as to where the will was typed would depend upon the wishes and convenience of the person getting it typed and when Arun Kumar has not been questioned as to why he got the will typed at a place about two miles away from the house it would not become a suspicious circumstance which ought to have been explained by the witnesses without being questioned about it. (18). The learned District Judge has referred to several suspicious circumstances which cannot be said to be suspicious at all, when the fact, that the appellants are not legatees under the will, is considered. Had they been instrumental in getting the will executed by undue influence or coercion then they could have got the property bequeathed to them but this is not the case. On the other hand, strained relations of Ayodhya Bai with her adopted son became eminent soon after the marriage of the son and they stopped living at Pushkar and Ayodhya Bai was living there all alone. Rameshwar is said to have been looking after her works but no document has been produced to show that he was so authorised. Further no document was produced to show that Ayodhya Bai was not writing her name as Ayodhya Bai. In absence of some proof such circumstances cannot become suspicious by themselves. (19). Rameshwar is said to have been looking after her works but no document has been produced to show that he was so authorised. Further no document was produced to show that Ayodhya Bai was not writing her name as Ayodhya Bai. In absence of some proof such circumstances cannot become suspicious by themselves. (19). The approach of the learned District Judge is mainly based on the circumstance that the adopted son has been disinherited and for this reason, the suspicious circumstances have been pointed out, which cannot be said to be suspicious at all, in view of the positive evidence about the proof of the execution of the will by the attesting witnesses. When the approach is based on incorrect facts and this Court after re-examining the evidence come to a different conclusion, then the decision of the learned District Judge has to be set aside. (20). This appeal is allowed and the application of the appellants for grant of probate is also allowed. The learned District Judge shall issue a probate on depositing necessary court fee. The order dated 11.04.1979 appointing Praveen Kumar as a receiver also comes to an end in view of the fact that the appeal has been allowed. Praveen Kumar shall submit accounts before the learned District Judge and also the Savings Bank Account pass books to the appellants. The record of the case be returned immediately. The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Ajmer on 21.01.1995.