Judgment : The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaint averments briefly stated is as follows: The defendant is the younger brother of the plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to their mother Chinnammal. The mother was very affectionate towards the plaintiff, even after the marriage, of the plaintiff. Chinnammal died intestate on 29. 1981 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant. She was unwell and was bed ridden for more than 6 months. She had no sound and disposing state of mind, and she was not able to distinguish right and wrong. In October, 1982, the defendant began to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, gave a police complaint. The defendant had informed the police that their mother has bequeathed the property in his favour by means of a registered Will and the plaintiff was not aware of it. Even if there is any such Will, it is not true, genuine and valid. The thumb impression in it is not voluntary and it is not the last testament of Chinnammal. The defendant should have obtained her thumb impression taking advantage of the mental faculty of the deceased Chinnammal. The mother has no reason to ignore the plaintiff. The Will is therefore not binding on the plaintiff, and she ignores the same. The defendant is not willing to have the suit property partitioned. Hence the suit for division of the suit property into two equal half and allotting one such share to the plaintiff. .2. The defendant in his written statement states as follows: .The plaintiff was married 18 years ago and has been living with her husband. The plaintiff and her husband indulged in drinking alcohol and wasteful expenditure and lost their entire property. They came to the house of Chinnammal penniless. Chinnammal therefore had no love or affection towards the plaintiff. The defendant and Chinnammal were living in the suit house and out of love and affection towards her son, she had executed a Will while in a sound and disposing state of mind on 19. 1981, bequeathing the suit properties in his favour. She died due to heart attack on 29. 1981. The Will dated 19. 1981 is her last Will and testament. The allegation that Chinnammal was affectionate towards the plaintiff is not correct. 1981, bequeathing the suit properties in his favour. She died due to heart attack on 29. 1981. The Will dated 19. 1981 is her last Will and testament. The allegation that Chinnammal was affectionate towards the plaintiff is not correct. The allegation that the thumb impression of Chinnammal must have been forged is not correct. The attestors are independent persons and the Will is a true and valid one. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of partition and the suit has to be dismissed. 3. On the above pleadings, the trial court has held that the Will dated 19. 1981 is true and valid and the suit was therefore dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal. .4. The plaintiff and the defendant are sister and brother respectively and they are the children of deceased Chinnammal. The suit property was purchased by Chinnammal out of her own funds and it is her personal property as alleged in the suit. According to the plaintiff, their mother was not keeping good health from about of 6 months prior to her death and she was not maintaining the mental capacity to know good and bad, right and wrong and she was actually bedridden prior to her death. According to the palintiff, the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession and therefore she gave a police complaint and when the police made an enquiry the defendant had informed them that their mother had executed a registered Will in his favour and it is only then she came to know of the Will said to have been executed by her mother and in her opinion it is not true and valid. The plaintiff has admitted that the thumb impression in the Will under Ex.P-1 should have been obtained by her brother, the defendant, taking advantage of her mother’s ill-health and bedridden condition and therefore, she is ignoring the Will and praying partition in the suit property owned by her mother: The defendant has resisted the suit by contending that their mother had an aversion against the plaintiff on account of her drinking habits with her husband and on account of the fact that they have lost the properties owned by them and on account of the fact that they have come for shelter with Chinnammal in the same house in another portion and therefore, his mother had executed the Will in his favour out of love and affection she had towards him only. The daughter was already married and she has come and resided in the same house where Chinnammal was residing is not in dispute. The Will is said to have been executed on 19. 1981 and Chinnammal died on 29. 1981 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would therefore argue that somebody should have fabricated the thumb impression of the sickly lady who was in bed and the defendant had taken active part in the execution as well as the registration of the document as a propounder and beneficiary and this is a very strong suspicious circumstance therein to doubt the genuineness of the Will, Ex.B-8. 5. It is true that the testator died on the third day of the execution of the Will Ex.B-8. But whether it is sufficient to suspect the genuineness of the same has to be considered. The defendant had examined three witnesses apart from giving evidence himself, as D.W. 1 to prove the execution and registration of the document. In the Will Ex.B-8 the testator has given the reason for the execution of the Will in such a way that she has taken note of the fact that the celebration of the marriage of the plaintiff giving certain articles to her at the time of marriage and the fact that the plaintiff was living comfortably with her husband and children. The Will also reads that her son was not yet married and that he was maintaining her and that his marriage could be celebrated only if there is some property in his name and she is executing the Will out of love and affection in the name of the defendant being her only son. From a reading of Ex.B-8, we can find out that Chinnammal had given reason as to why she has not given any share for her daughter and as to why she had given the entire property in favour of the defendant, her son. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that if it is a landed property there will be some meaning in the testator bequeathing the entire property in favour of her son and to the exclusion of the other heir; but this is a house property in which in one portion the plaintiff is also residing with her family members and therefore the reasons given by the testator in the Will are not reasonable. We have to sit in the arm chair of the testator to consider whether the reasons given by the testator are to be accepted. Being the only son, it is but natural for Chinnammal to have more affection towards her son than towards her daughter who was already married and living comfortably with her family. The fact that the marriage of the son was not yet celebrated and the testator was under the impression that her son can get married only if there is some property would only show her anxiety in her son getting married. The testator had mortgaged the property previously under Ex.B-6 for Rs.4,000 and it has been redeemed by her subsequently under Ex.B-7. The defendant gives reason for the mortgage and subsequent redemption by stating that his mother had mortgaged the property when certain negotiations and the arrangements made for celebrating his marriage, and the efforts taken by his mother did not fructify since the horoscope did not tally and therefore his mother, the mortgager has redeemed the property. This version of D.W.I and the documentary evidence under Exs.B-6 and B-7 lend support to the reason given by the testator stating in the Will that she is executing the same in favour of her son under the belief that he can get married only if there is some property in his name. This version of D.W.I and the documentary evidence under Exs.B-6 and B-7 lend support to the reason given by the testator stating in the Will that she is executing the same in favour of her son under the belief that he can get married only if there is some property in his name. So also for the exclusion of the plaintiff, the reason given by the testator is that the plaintiff is residing comfortably with her husband and children. Except stating that there was no reason for not giving any share for her in the property, the plaintiff has not given sufficient reason as to how this recital in Ex.B-8 is untrustworthy of acceptance. According to P.W.I, she had taken care of the treatment of her mother and her brother did not take care of their mother and therefore her mother had a dislike towards the defendant. But during cross-examination, P.W.I has stated that she had taken her mother for treatment to the Government Hospital, Erode and they have issued O.P. chit but it is not available. According to P.W.1, even though she had taken Chinnammal to the Hospital for more than 15 times, she cannot give the month or even the year in which she took Chinnammal to the Hospital. Even though she has claimed that she has purchased medicines no prescription has been filed by the plaintiff to show that it was she who had taken care towards her mother. According to the plaintiff, the treatment of her mother was given by one Dr.Govindarajan. But she has stated that she does not intend to examine him. Except her statement that it was she who had taken care of her mother Chinnammal, the plaintiff has not placed any material to hold that it was she who had attended on her sickly mother. Two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and their evidence have no significance at all. According to P.W.2, Chinnammal herself had informed to him that the defendant is without any responsibility and her two children are her two eyes. Except stating that Chinnammal liked the plaintiff and defendant equally and she had some grievance against her son, nothing has come out of from the evidence of P.W.2. According to P.W.2, Chinnammal herself had informed to him that the defendant is without any responsibility and her two children are her two eyes. Except stating that Chinnammal liked the plaintiff and defendant equally and she had some grievance against her son, nothing has come out of from the evidence of P.W.2. According to P.W.3, Chinnammal had stated to him several times that the defendant is behaving without any responsibility and she wanted to give her property between her children. The evidence of P.W.3 with regard to what was the intention of Chinnammal with regard to the property itself shows that he was only a witness brought up for the purpose of this case. According to P.W.3, from the next year after marriage the plaintiff is residing in the same house for the past 20 years. The evidence of P.W.3 itself would probabilise the case of the defendant that Chinnammal could not be happy over the situation or condition in which her married daughter is residing with her. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that her mother had no special liking towards the son. 7. The defendant being the only son of the widowed mother, the learned counsel would argue that the lady would have thought of giving her entire property to him under the belief that her property only goes to her son. It cannot be stated that there is no merits in this argument, in view of the fact that the defendant was not married, inspite of the efforts of Chinnammal to get him married. In order to prove the genuineness of the Will, the scribe and one of the attestors were examined by the defendant. D.W.2, the attestor would say that he went to the place where the document was being written on being invited by Chinnammal and when he went there one Ayyar was writing the Will and he read over the same, after writing it, and it was acknowledged as correct by Chinnammal and then Chinnammal affixed her thumb impression in the above document. It is further stated by him that after Chinnammal had affixed her thumb impression, himself and another person had signed the same. At the time of affixing the thumb impression Chinnammal was keeping good health and her mental condition was also alright. It is further stated by him that after Chinnammal had affixed her thumb impression, himself and another person had signed the same. At the time of affixing the thumb impression Chinnammal was keeping good health and her mental condition was also alright. During cross-examination, D.W.2 has stated that he had attested the Will and put his signature also after the same was written by D.W.3 in his own handwriting. But he says that he does not remember who is the other person who had attested the Will. D.W.3 is the scribe and he has stated that after he wrote the Will and read over the same Chinnammal accepted the correctness of the same and affixed her thumb impression in all the five papers in the presence of two attestors and the attestors have seen when Chinnammal affixed her thumb impression and Chinnammal had seen the attestors putting their signatures as witnesses. It is also the evidence of the defendant that the Will was written in the office of the scribe from 11 a.m. to 12 noon and except these two witnesses and the defendant, nobody accompanied Chinnammal. It is not disputed by the defendant that he accompanied her to the document writer’s office as well as the Sub Registrar’s office. The defendant is the beneficiary is also is not in dispute. But it cannot be stated that he had taken an active part in the execution of the Will since D.W.2 and D.W.3 have stated that the Will was written as desired by Chinnammal and the correctness of the same was also acknowledged by her. The question whether the Will had been properly executed is substantially a question of fact. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of any other document. Except the special requirement of attestors prescribed in the case of a Will, the onus is also on the propounder. If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder has to explain the same. In the present case, one of the suspicious circumstances stated is that the defendant has accompanied Chinnammal to the document writer’s house and the Sub Registrar’s office. There are no other person living with the Chinnammal except the defendant, who is her only son. Chinnammal is aged. If there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder has to explain the same. In the present case, one of the suspicious circumstances stated is that the defendant has accompanied Chinnammal to the document writer’s house and the Sub Registrar’s office. There are no other person living with the Chinnammal except the defendant, who is her only son. Chinnammal is aged. The defendant accompanying her to the document writer’s office and Sub Registrar’s office by themselves cannot be sufficient to hold that the genuineness of the Will itself can be doubted when the due execution of the same has been spoken to by D.W.2 and D.W.3. The truth of the Will cannot be established with mathematical certainty. D.W.2 has stated that after Chinnammal had signed the Will he had signed it. But he has not stated that he had seen Chinnammal signing the Will and Chinnammal saw him signing the Will. It is only implied from the evidence of D.W.2 that each one of them has seen affixing the thumb impression. The scribe has made it clear that the testator had seen the attestors signing the Will and the attestors have seen the testator affixing her thumb impression in the Will. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it has not been spoken to by D.W.2 that the testator saw who were signing the Will and he saw the signing of the Will by the testator cannot be true in view of his evidence that he affixed his signature after the testator had affixed her thumb impression in the document accepting the correctness of the same when the scribe read over the document. The defendant is said to have been present at the scene of occurrence and it is not stated by the plaintiff that he had taken any other part in the due execution of the Will. The mere physical presence of the legatee at the time of the execution of the Will without anything more cannot be considered as a circumstance to allow any suspicion about the disposing capacity of the testator and about the disposition made under the Will was not of a clear mind or that undue influence was brought to on the testator. Therefore. Therefore. I am of opinion that the evidence of D.W. 1 to D.W.3 has established the due execution of the Will under Ex.B-8 and the alleged situation and circumstances are also not significant to suspect the genuineness of the same. 8. Coming to the fact that the document was registered one, it is needless for me to observe that the Supreme Court has held in the decision reported in Rani Purnima Debt and another v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb. (1962)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 27: (1962)2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 27: (1962)1 S.C.J. 723: A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 567: (1962)3 S.C.R. 135 as follows: “If a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a Will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in taken thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the Will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the Will) that the testator knew that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much value. Registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering.” 9. Now let us consider the evidence of D.W.4 on that aspect. D.W.4 is the Sub Registrar during the relevant period at Erode. He has categorically stated that the document under Ex.B-8 was produced by Chinnammal and he called her and asked her whether she had executed a Will and that Chinnammal had replied that she had executed the Will. Now let us consider the evidence of D.W.4 on that aspect. D.W.4 is the Sub Registrar during the relevant period at Erode. He has categorically stated that the document under Ex.B-8 was produced by Chinnammal and he called her and asked her whether she had executed a Will and that Chinnammal had replied that she had executed the Will. It is further stated by him that for a question put by him as to whose favour the document is written, Chinnammal had replied that it is in favour of her son. It is also stated by D.W.4 that he read over the document and it was accepted as correct by Chinnammal and he was satisfied with the same. D.W.4 has stated that the registration charges was also paid by Chinnammal and when she was identified he has completed the document. D.W.4 was cross-examined as to whether any person has accompanied her, how many children she had, whether she had daughter and other family members, for which he has answered in the negative. The Sub-Registrar who is registering a document cannot be expected to remember as to who are all the persons who have accompanied the person, who is registering the document, how many children he has got, so on and so forth. He can only give evidence from the endorsement made by him at the time of registration and D.W.4 has stated Chinnammal had been identified by the persons who have identified by her and she had affixed her thumb impression in his presence and he was satisfied. When the plaintiff has come forward with the specific plea that the Will is a fabricated document she could have easily proved the same by taking steps for the thumb impressions found in Ex.B-8 which are doubted by her compared with the admitted thumb impression of Chinnammal in Exs.B-6 and B-7 when she had redeemed the property. If only she had done the same, the plaintiff could have easily proved that the thumb impression in Ex.B-8 is not the thumb impression of her mother Chinnammal. Instead of doing it, making a very bald allegation that her brother should have fabricated the document taking advantage of the illness of Chinnammal cannot help the plaintiff in any way. If only she had done the same, the plaintiff could have easily proved that the thumb impression in Ex.B-8 is not the thumb impression of her mother Chinnammal. Instead of doing it, making a very bald allegation that her brother should have fabricated the document taking advantage of the illness of Chinnammal cannot help the plaintiff in any way. The fact of the registration of the Will even though, is only a piece of evidence of the execution, it is a strong piece of evidence with regard to the genuineness of the document cannot be lost sight of since the evidence of D.W.4 establishes that he had taken all precautions and tests to find out whether it is executed by Chinnammal and whether she is executing the same under her own violation uninfluenced by any third party. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that the version of the plaintiff that Chinnammal had no reason to prefer the son alone, to her exclusion and the Will under Ex.B-8 is a fabricated document has not been established by the plaintiff. As already observed by me, while deciding the question of the rights of parties on the basis of a Will, the court has to sit in the arm chair of the testator and when we consider the evidence placed before the court we have to come to the conclusion that the trial court has rightly come to the decision that Chinnammal had executed the Will while in a sound disposing state of mind, bequeathing in favour of the defendant, her entire properties and therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for partition and separate possession cannot be upheld. In that view, I am of opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court and the appeal has to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.