JUDGMENT R.L, KHURANA, J.—This judgment will dispose of the abovenoted two probate cases since similar questions are involved therein and they pertain to the testamentary succession to the estate of Nand Lal Jyotishi. The pedigree table showing the relationship of the parties is as under:— Nand Lal Jyotishi Smt. Kartaro (widow) Rajesh Chand (Son) Prem Nath (Son) Smt. Kamlesh Kumari (daughter) Smt. Aksha Kumari (Wife) Smt. Bimla Devi (Widow) Satish Kumar (Son) Surinder Kumar (Son) Shri Nand Lal abovenamed, a permanent resident of village Dhusara, Tehsil Amb, District Una, and a Jyotishi" by profession died at Bombay on 19.11.1986. He left behind moveable and immoveable properties at Bombay and Una. 2. Shri Ramesh Chand (son of the deceased) and Smt. Kartaro Devi (widow of the deceased) applied for obtaining the probate of the Will dated 10.7.1969 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Nand Lal at village Dhusara, Tehsil Amb, District Una. This Will is alleged to be the last Will and testament of the deceased. Vide this Will, the deceased is alleged to have appointed and named his two sons and widow (petitioners and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 4 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987) as the "Executors" of the Will for the purpose of administration of his estate. 3. Respondents 2 to 4 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987, who are the widow and sons respectively of Prem Nath, the predeceased son of the deceased Nand Lal, also approached this Court seeking probate of the Will dated 31.7.1986 alleged to have been executed by the deceased Nand Lal at Bombay. It has been pleaded that the Will dated 31.7.1986 is the last Will and testament of the deceased. Under this Will, the deceased Nand Lal is alleged to have appointed and named his widow Smt. Kartaro Devi, and S/Shri Satish Kumar and Surinder Kumar sons of his predeceased son, as "Executors" of the Will for the administration of his estate. 4. Respondent No. 5 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and respondent No. 3 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased Nand Lal. 5. Smt. Kartaro Devi, widow of the deceased Nand Lal, died during the pendency of the present petition. 4. Respondent No. 5 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and respondent No. 3 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988, Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, is the daughter of the deceased Nand Lal. 5. Smt. Kartaro Devi, widow of the deceased Nand Lal, died during the pendency of the present petition. Her name was substituted by Smt. Aksha Kumari wife of Ramesh Chand, on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed in her favour by Smt. Kartaro Devi. 6. Be it stated that the Will alleged to have been executed by Smt. Kartaro Devi in favour of Smt. Aksha Kumari is not in dispute in the present petitions. 7. The two petitions for probate are being resisted and contested by the parties, that is, the legal heirs of the deceased Nand Lal. 8. In Probate Case No. 1 of 1987, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 31.12.1992:— 1. Whether Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi executed a legal and valid will on 10th of July, 1969 in favour of the petitioners? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved whether petitioners are entitled to the issuance of probate in their favour? OPP 3. Relief. On the same date, the following issues came to be framed in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988 :— 1. Whether probate petition is not maintainable in view of the allegations alleged in the reply? OPR 2. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of necessary parties? OPR 3. Whether Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi executed a legal and valid will on 31st July, 1986 in favour of the petitioner? OPP 4. In case Issue No. 3 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to the issuance of probate in their favour? OPP 5. Relief. In terms of the order dated 20.5.1993 passed in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987, evidence in respect of both the cases was ordered to be recorded in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and respondents in the manner they are so described in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the petitioners and respondents in the manner they are so described in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the issues framed in the two cases are as under :— Issue No. 1 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and Issue No. 3 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988 Three Wills alleged to have been executed by the deceased Nand Lal have been placed on record. The first of such Wills is Ex.PW-1/B alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 10.7.1969. The second Will is Ex.CW/5 alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 18.5.1985 while the third Will is Ex.CW/1 alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 31.7.1986. 10. Insofar as the second Will Ex. CW/5 dated 18.5.1985 is concerned, the same has neither been proved in evidence in accordance with law nor the parties are at issue in respect thereof. The same is, therefore, straight awary excluded from consideration. 11. The petitioners are relying upon the Will Ex. PW-l/B and seeking probate thereof claiming it to be the last Will and testament of the deceased Nand Lal. Respondents 2 to 4, on the other hand, have asserted that the.Will Ex. CW/1 is the last Will and testament of the deceased Nand Lal and they are seeking probate of the said Will. 12. Admittedly, the deceased Nand Lal was a permanent resident of Village Dhusara, in Tehsil Amb of District Una. He owned landed property in the said village. It is also admitted case of the parties that the deceased was an astrologer and Pujari by profession and was carrying out such profession at 3-Anand Niwas, A-Road, Church Gate, Bombay. He died at Bombay on 19.11.1986. It is also not in dispute that the parties, namely, the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 6 are the legal heirs of the deceased. 13. The Will Ex. PW-l/B dated 10.7.1969 is alleged to have been executed by the deceased in Village Dhusfara, Tehsil Amb, District Una, as per the pleadings contained in para 3 of the petition in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987. The Will Ex. 13. The Will Ex. PW-l/B dated 10.7.1969 is alleged to have been executed by the deceased in Village Dhusfara, Tehsil Amb, District Una, as per the pleadings contained in para 3 of the petition in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987. The Will Ex. CW/ 1 dated 31.7.1986, as per the averments contained in para 4 of the petition in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988, was executed by the deceased at Bombay. 14. Before examining the question as to the validity of the Will Ex. PW-l/B, it would be proper to go into the question of validity of the Will Ex. CW/1 since once the latter Will is held to be valid, the former Will Ex. PW-l/B, even if valid, will lose its significance and the latter Will Ex. CW/ 1 would prevail and will have to be given effect to. 15. The Will Ex. CW/1 is hand written and is in Hindi. There is nothing on the record to show as to who had scribed the said Will. It is not the case of the respondents 2 to 4 that the Will was scribed by the deceased Nand Lal himself. 16. In order to prove the execution of the said Will, the respondents 2 to 4 have examined the two attesting witnesses thereof, namely; CW-1 Shri Jiwan Lal Kapoor and CW-2 Shri Harbans Lal Ahluwalia. Admittedly, the Will Ex. CW/1 was never scribed in the presence of these two attesting witnesses. None of these two witnesses could state as to who had scribed the Will. 17. A perusal of the Will Ex. CW/1 shows that the same is shown to have been scribed on 31.7.1986. The deceased Nand Lal is alleged to have signed the same in execution thereof on the same day. CW-2 Shri Harbans Lal Ahluwalia is also shown to have appended his signatures thereto as an attesting witness thereof on the same day, that is, 31.7.1986. CW-1 Shri Jiwan Lal Kapoor had signed the Will as an attesting witness under the date-line of 4.8.1986. 18. Clause (c) of Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with attestation of Wills. CW-2 Shri Harbans Lal Ahluwalia is also shown to have appended his signatures thereto as an attesting witness thereof on the same day, that is, 31.7.1986. CW-1 Shri Jiwan Lal Kapoor had signed the Will as an attesting witness under the date-line of 4.8.1986. 18. Clause (c) of Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, deals with attestation of Wills. It provides:— "The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary." Under the above provision for the purpose of valid attestation of a Will, the following are the essential conditions :— (i) the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses; (ii) each witness must have seen either the testator signing the Will or some other person signing the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator; or (iii) if the Will is already signed, each witness must have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or of the signature of such other person signing for him; (iv) it is not necessary that more than one witness be present at one and the same time. The only statutory requirement is that attestation must be "amimo testandi"; (v) each witness must attest and sign the Will in the presence of the testator. 19. It is well settled that a Will has to be proved in the same manner as any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed by Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain. The test of satisfaction is that of the prudent mind in the circumstances of the case. [See : Sashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, (AIR 1964 SC 529) and Ram Chandra v. Champa Devi, (AIR 1965 SC 354)]. 20. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain. The test of satisfaction is that of the prudent mind in the circumstances of the case. [See : Sashi Kumar Banerjee and others v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, (AIR 1964 SC 529) and Ram Chandra v. Champa Devi, (AIR 1965 SC 354)]. 20. It is equally well settled that the initial burden of proving the Will is on the propounder of the Will and where there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the onus is again on the propounder to explain such suspicious circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court before the Will can be accepted as genuine. 21. In the present case, according to respondents 2 to 4, who are the propounders of the Will Ex. CW/1, they were not aware of the existence of a Will like Ex. CW/1 till they received a letter dated 2.12.1986, Ex. CW/4 from Messrs. Nanu Bhai Desai and Company, Chartered Accountants, Bombay. Respondent No. 3 Satish Kumar Sharma, while appearing as RW-1 on 25.4.1994 has deposed in the following terms:— "After the death of my grand-father, I received a letter (original dated 2.12.1986) from M/s. Nanu Bhai Desai and Company. The letter having been written by Shri Shantnu N. Desai indicated that some papers pertaining to me were in their possessison and I should take them from him. I then met him. That letter is exhibited as Ex. CW-4. He handed over me certain documents including the Will (Ex. CW-1). I identify the handwriting and signatures of my grand-father. Ex. CW-1 bears the signatures of my grand-father." [Emphasis supplied] It will not be out of place to quote here the contents of the letter dated 2.12.1986, Ex. CW/4. The letter reads :— "Dear Mr. Sharma, I shall thank you to kindly see me in connection with your late Grand-father, Narid Lai Jyotishis matter. Yours Sincerely, sd/- (Shantanu N. Desai) Shri Satish Sharma, Messrs. Golden Plast, 15-Swastic Ind. Vasai (East) District Thane." The letter quoted above does not indicate that some papers pertaining to respondents 2 to 4 were in possession of the above said firm of Chartered Accountants nor there was any request that such papers may be collected from them. Therefore, the version given by respondent No. 3 while appearing as RW-1 stands belied. 22. Shri Shantanu N. Desai, abovenamed? has appeared in the witness box as CW-3. Therefore, the version given by respondent No. 3 while appearing as RW-1 stands belied. 22. Shri Shantanu N. Desai, abovenamed? has appeared in the witness box as CW-3. He has deposed with regard to the Will Ex. CW/1 as under:— ".... I have seen Ex. CW/1, it was in my custody till after his death. At the time of handing over Ex. CW/1 to me late Shri Nand Lal had instructed me to hand it over to his legal heirs after his death. I do not remember the time and year of death of late Shri Nand Lal. When I came to know about the death of late Shri Nand Lal, I enquired from the temple whether anybody had the address of his grand-sons because I kn^w that they were in Bombay. I was given the address after two days according to which I wrote a letter to his grand-sons dated 2nd December, 1986, Ex. CW/4 which is addressed to Shri Satish Sharma. When Shri Satish Sharma contacted me I handed over Ex. CW/1 alongwith the income tax file of late Shri Nand Lal. I kept Ex. CW/ 1 in the same condition as it was handed over to me......” During the course of cross-examination, the witness has stated that the Will Ex. CW/ 1 was handed over to respondent No. 3 Satish Kumar by him at his residence in the evening. He however, could not state whether any receipt for the documents handed over by him to respondent Satish Sharrna was obtained by him. The witness has further gone to state that respondents 3 and 4, S/Shri Satish Sharma and Surinder Kumar were known to him since they were introduced to him by the deceased Nand Lal during his life time and that both these respondents had visited his office and residence once or twice during the life time of the deceased Nand Lal. 23. As against the version given by CW-3 Shantanu N. Desai, respondent No. 3 Satish Sharma while appearing as RW-1 has the following to state during his cross-examination :— "I became acquainted with M/s. Nanu Bhai Desai since after the receipt of the letter and the receipt of the documents consequent thereto. My brother also did not know Shri Shantanu Bhai Desai. We never visited the firm of M/s. Nanu Bhai Desai prior to the receipt of letter Ext. CW/4 ....... My brother also did not know Shri Shantanu Bhai Desai. We never visited the firm of M/s. Nanu Bhai Desai prior to the receipt of letter Ext. CW/4 ....... It is also incorrect to suggest that I and my brother, Surinder used to meet Shri Shantanu Bhai Desai during the lifetime of my grand-father...... It is wrong to suggest that I in collusion with Shantanu Bhai Desai got the letter Ex. CW/4 and will Ext. CW/1 fabricated......." 24. The contradictions coming in the depositions of CW-3 Shantanu N. Desai and RW-1 Satish Sharma assume significance in view of the admitted case of the respondents 2 to 4 that they were not aware of the existence of the Will Ex. CW/ 1 till the same was handed over to them by CW-3. Had RW-3 Satish Sharma been not known to CW-3, it can hardly be believed that CW-3 would have delivered important documents/papers of the deceased to an unknown person without having verified and without having been satisfied with the true identity of the person. If respondents 3 and 4 were known to CW-3, as is claimed by CW-3, then it is not known why the respondent Satish Sharma has suppressed this fact. 25. CW-3 Shantanu N. Desai has deposed that respondent Satish Sharma had come to his residence when papers including Will Ex. CW/1 were handed over to him. Letter Ex. CW/4, on the basis of which respondent Satish Sharma had gone to collect the papers from CW-3, contains only the office address of CW-3. Residential address is not mentioned-herein. If respondent Satish Kumar was not knowing CW-3 earlier, how he happened to know his residential address. There is nothing on the record to suggest that respondent Satish Kumar had enquired about the residential address of CW-3. 26. It has come in the statement of CW-3 that the Will Ex. CW/ 1 was kept by him in a vault of his office chamber. As pointed out above, as per CW-3 the papers of the deceased Nand Lal including the Will Ex. CW/ 1 were handed over by him to the respondent Satish Sharma at his residence. How CW-3 came to know that respondent Satish Sharma would be visiting him at his residence? Why the papers including the Will Ex. CW/1 were removed from the vault in the office by CW-3 to his residence? Both these questions have remained unanswered. CW/ 1 were handed over by him to the respondent Satish Sharma at his residence. How CW-3 came to know that respondent Satish Sharma would be visiting him at his residence? Why the papers including the Will Ex. CW/1 were removed from the vault in the office by CW-3 to his residence? Both these questions have remained unanswered. Absence of answers to these questions amounts to unexplained suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will Ex. CW/1. 27. There is yet another significant aspect of the case. The two alleged attesting witnesses of the Will Ex. CW/1, namely, CW-1 Jiwan Lal Kapoor and CW-2 Harbans Lal Ahluwalia have categorically stated that respondents 3 and 4, S/Shri Satish Kumar and Surinder Kumar were not known to them. Surprisingly enough both of them on 21.1.1988 and 1.3.1988 respectively had sworn the affidavits Ex. CW/2 and CW/3 on the mere asking of respondents Satish Kumar and Surinder Kumar. 28. A perusal of the endorsements made by the stamp vendor on Ex. CW/2 and CW/3 shows that the non-judicial stamp paper was purchased by respondent Surinder Sharma in his own name. Both CW-1 and CW-2 had appended their signatures on the affidavits on the same having been brought to them. They never appeared before any authority for the purpose of getting these affidavits attested in accordance with law. In fact, none of these affidavits have been attested in accordance with law. The manner in which both CW-1 and CW-2 have conducted themselves goes to show that they are interested in helping the respondents 2 to 4. It also indicates that both these witnesses are well acquainted with respondents Satish Kumar and Surinder Kumar. 29. As CW-1 Shri Jiwan Lal Kapoor has stated that the Will Ex. CW/1 was brought to him by late Shri Nand Lal on 4.8.1986 with a request to attest the same as a witness. However, in his affidavit Ex. CW/2 he has contradicted himself by stating that late Shri Nand Lal had called him to his residence on 4.8.1986 and had asked him to be a attesting witness to his last Will and testament dated 31.7.1986. This contradiction also casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the Will Ex. CW/1 on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. The Will Ex. This contradiction also casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the Will Ex. CW/1 on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. The Will Ex. CW/1 contains a certificate at point B which translated to English reads :— "Signed, declared and published by the testator in our presence, present at the same time and read over and explained to him in Hindi at his request and in his presence, and in the presence of each other have unto set and subscribed our signatures thereto.” 30. A bare reading of the above certificate shows that the deceased Nand Lal and the two attesting witnesses had signed the Will at one and the same time in the presence of each other. This certificate runs counter to the case set up by respondents No. 2 to 4, according to whom while Will Ex. CW/1 was signed by the deceased Nand Lal as testator and attested by CW-2 Harbans Lai Ahluwalia on 31.7.1986, the same was attested as a witness by CW-1 Jai Lai Kapoor only on 4.8.1986. 31. This circumstance, which appears to be suspicious, has not been explained by respondents No. 2 to 4. Considering the entire evidence coming to the record, the only irresistible conclusion is that respondents 2 to 4 have failed to prove that the deceased Nand Lal had executed a valid Will on 31.7.1986 in respect of which a probate is being sought for by them. Next comes the question whether the deceased Nand Lal had validly executed the Will Ex. PW-l/B on 10.7.1969. 32. The Will Ex. PW-1 /B is typed in English. There are as many as five attesting witnesses thereto. Nothing has come on the record to show as to who had drafted the Will and when. There is also no evidence as to where and when the same was got typed out. 33. As stated above, according to the petitioners, the Will Ex. PW-l/B was executed in Village Dhusara, Tehsil Amb of District Una on 10.7.1969. The five alleged attesting witnesses of the Will Ex. PW-l/B are S/Shri Sohan Lal, Roshan Lal, Krishan Dev, Prem Nath and Petitioner Ramesh Chand. 34. In order to prove the Will Ex. PW-l/B, the petitioner have examined PW-2 Krishan Dev one of the attesting witnesses. Besides, petitioner Ramesh Chand has himself appeared as PW-1. The five alleged attesting witnesses of the Will Ex. PW-l/B are S/Shri Sohan Lal, Roshan Lal, Krishan Dev, Prem Nath and Petitioner Ramesh Chand. 34. In order to prove the Will Ex. PW-l/B, the petitioner have examined PW-2 Krishan Dev one of the attesting witnesses. Besides, petitioner Ramesh Chand has himself appeared as PW-1. Petitioner Ramesh Chand who is claimed to be one of the attesting witnesses of the Will Ex. PW-l/B, has deposed : "My father had got a draft will prepared in Bombay which he had brought alongwith himself at Village Dasara on his visit in July, 1969. I was also in my native village at that time. At that time I was an employee of Deva Bank at Amritsar. I had come to see my mother and other relations of my family at that time. Besides me, my brother was also there. At the time when the Will was signed, my father, myself, my brother, Sohan Lal Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dasara, and two other witnesses, namely, Krishan Dev and Roshan Lal were also present. All had signed in the presence of each other..." 35. PW-2 Krishan Dev, who is alleged to be one of the attesting witnesses of the Will Ex. PW-l/B, has stated as follows with regard to the execution of the said Will by the deceased Nand Lal:— "I knew late Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi from my childhood. I also know PW-1 Shri Ramesh. As and when late Shri Nand Lal visited his native place, he used to meet him off and on. Two days before I signed Will Ex. PW-l/B, late Shri Prem Nath had come to me with the information that my father had called me at his place on 10th of July, 1969. I had gone to his Village Dussara. At that time Sohan Lal Sarpanch (since deceased), Roshan Lal, Prem Nath, Ramesh and late Shri Nand Lal were already present. He had shown his desire to will away his estate amongst his sons and other near relations mentioned in the will Ex. PW-l/B. Before we put our signatures thereupon, he had also read over and explained to us the contents of the will Ex. PW-l/B. After having understood the contents, I had put my signatures thereto. He had shown his desire to will away his estate amongst his sons and other near relations mentioned in the will Ex. PW-l/B. Before we put our signatures thereupon, he had also read over and explained to us the contents of the will Ex. PW-l/B. After having understood the contents, I had put my signatures thereto. Other persons present had also signed in my presence and in the presence of the others.....” There is nothing in the statement of PW-2 that the testator Nand Lal either had affixed his signatures on the Will Ex. PW-l/B in his presence or that the testator had acknowledged his signatures on the Will Ex. PW-l/B. 36. The words used in Clause (c) of Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925, are that two or more witnesses shall attest and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will. The legislature has made a distinction between mere signing and attesting. Attesting is more than mere signing of the Will. Attesting means signing a document for a particular purpose, that is, to testify to the signature of the executant. [See: Durga Dutt v. Chandanu (AIR 1956 H.P. 58)]. Since the deceased Nand Lal had neither signed the Will Ex, PW-l/B nor had acknowledged his signatures thereon in the presence of PW-2 Krishan Dev, the mere fact that PW-2 had signed the Will Ex. PW-l/B, would not make him an attesting witness thereof within the meaning of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Besides, there are some suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will Ex. PW-1 /B, which circumstances have remained unexplained. 37. As stated above, according to the petitioners the Will Ex. PW-l/B was executed by the deceased Nand Lal on 10.7.1969 at Village Dhusara in Tehsil Amb of District Una. 38. A bare perusal of the last paragraph of the Will Ex. PW-l/B shows that the same is shown to have been executed at Bombay. PW-1 Ramesh Chand, petitioner, has though stated that the deceased had got a draft Will prepared in Bombay which draft he had brought with him to Village Dhusara, he could not explain as to why the words "at Bombay" appearing in the last paragraph of the Will were not scored off when the Will is alleged to have been executed at Dhusara. Similarly, PW-2 Krishan Dev also could not offer any explanation as to why the words "at Bombay" in Ex. Similarly, PW-2 Krishan Dev also could not offer any explanation as to why the words "at Bombay" in Ex. PW-l/B were not scored off either by the deceased Nand Lal or any one of the persons alleged to have been present at the time of the execution of the Will Ex. PW-l/B. This witness though has claimed that the Will was read over and explained to him before he had appended his signatures thereto, has categorically pleaded ignorance as to the existence of the words "at Bombay" in the said Will. 39. The date "10th" in the last but one line of the Will Ex. PW-l/B, after the words "at Bombay this and before the words "day of July, 1989" has been written in ink. According to PW-1 Ramesh Chand, this date was written by the deceased Nand Lal himself while as per PW-2 Krishan Dev such date is in the hand of Roshan Lal, a retired teacher, who is also alleged to be an attesting witness of the Will. 40. In view of the contradictory evidence coming on record, the examination of the said Roshan Lal as a witness in the present case was very material. The record shows that this Roshan Lal was summoned as a witness by the petitioners and he was present in the Court on 20.5.1993. He was, however, never examined and was given up. Admittedly, the deceased Nand Lal during his life time was residing and working for gain at Bombay. He also died at Bombay. He was visiting his native village only once or twice a year. Under the circumstances the onus was on the petitioners to show that the deceased Nand Lal was actually in village Dhusara on 10.7.1969 when the Will Ex. PW-l/B is alleged to have been executed. No evidence has come on the record in this regard. The Will Ex. PW-1 /B was never put to respondent Satish Sharma by the petitioners when he appeared as his own witness as RW-1. No suggestion was ever given to him that the deceased had executed a Will Ex. PW-l/B on 10.7.1969. The said Will is shown to have been signed by Prem Nath father of RW-1 as an attesting witness. RW-1 has identified the signatures of the deceased Nand Lal on certain other documents. Therefore, the Will Ex. No suggestion was ever given to him that the deceased had executed a Will Ex. PW-l/B on 10.7.1969. The said Will is shown to have been signed by Prem Nath father of RW-1 as an attesting witness. RW-1 has identified the signatures of the deceased Nand Lal on certain other documents. Therefore, the Will Ex. PW-l/B ought to have been put to the witness for the purpose of identifying the signatures of the deceased Nand Lal as well as that of Prem Nath. Failure on the part of the petitioners to cross-examine RW-1 on the execution of Will Ex. PW-l/B would lead to an adverse inference and it will have to be presumed that the said Will was never executed by the deceased. 41. Mark X is the carbon copy of the Will Ex. PW-l/B. The same is shown to have been signed by the deceased Nand Lal and attested by only one witness, namely, Roshan Lal of Dhusara. This Roshan Lal had also signed the Will Ex. PW-l/B as a witness. The difference being that while Mark X has been signed by him in English, the signatures appearing on Ex. PW-l/B are in Urdu. 42. RW-1 Ramesh Chand has admitted that Roshan Lal abovenamed used to visit Bombay. According to the respondents the deceased had executed a Will at Bombay. The same was attested by Roshan Lal at Bombay. The deceased had brought such incomplete Will to village Dhusara for completing the execution thereof, however, on finding that the petitioner Ramesh Cfcand had withdrawn substantial amount from his (the deceased) account, he had changed his mind and had allowed the Will to remain incomplete. A suggestion to this effect was given to PW-1 Ramesh Chand during his cross-examination, though denied by him. PW-1 even has gone to the extent of denying the signatures of the deceased Nand Lal on Mark X’. 43. In view of two documents, namely; Ex. PW-l/B and Mark X coming on record which are shown to bear the signatures of Roshan Lal as a witness, the examination of such witness became all the more essential. The petitioner being the propounder of the Will Ex. PW-1 /B was required to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Will, which they have miserably failed to do. 44. The petitioner being the propounder of the Will Ex. PW-1 /B was required to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Will, which they have miserably failed to do. 44. A contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the suspicious circumstances shown to exist are immaterial and cannot be taken note of in view of the fact that the respondents 2 to 4 have themselves admitted the execution of such Will. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to para 3 of the reply dated 10.4.1988 filed by the respondents 2 to 4 to the petition in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987, which reads:— "It is submitted that during his life time, Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi executed three wills i.e., one on 10.7.1969, second being on 18.5.1985 and the last will and testament of Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi was executed at Bombay on 31.7.1986." The above pleadings contain an admission only to the fact that the deceased had executed some Will on 10.7.1969. These pleadings do not contain an admission as to the execution of the Will Ex. PW-l/B. Besides, these pleadings are not to be read in isolation. The entire pleadings contained in the reply have to be read as a whole. 45. As per the case of the petitioners, the Will Ex. PW-l/B was executed by the deceased on 10.7.1969 at Village Dhusara. The respondents while denying such execution of the Will at Dhusara, in para 3 of their reply have pleaded in the following terms:— “....... It is emphatically denied that the Will dated 10.7.1969 was executed by late Shri Nand Lal at Village Dhusara. In fact, the recital in the Will itself show that the same was executed at Bombay. The replying respondents on going through the papers and belongings of late Shri Nand Lal Jyotishi at his Bombay residence found a carbon copy of the Will executed on 10th July, 1969. The same has only been witnessed by one Shri Roshan Lal. However, the Will which has been filed in the present probate proceedings has been witnessed by Shri Krishan Dev, Shri Roshan Lal and Sohan Lal in addition to petitioner No. 1 Shri Ramesh Chand. The same has only been witnessed by one Shri Roshan Lal. However, the Will which has been filed in the present probate proceedings has been witnessed by Shri Krishan Dev, Shri Roshan Lal and Sohan Lal in addition to petitioner No. 1 Shri Ramesh Chand. The petitioners have made false averments in the petition and are liable to be proceeded in accordance with law." Reading the entire pleadings as a whole, it cannot be said that the execution of Will Ex. PW-l/B has been admitted by the respondents 2 to 4. 46. Considering the entire evidence coining on the record, I hold that the parties have failed to prove that the deceased Nand Lal had executed a valid Will either on 10.7.1969 or on 31.7.1986. Issue No. 1 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 is decided against the petitioners while Issue No. 3 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988 is decided against respondents No. 2 to 4. Issue No, 2 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and Issue No. 4 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988. 47. In view of my findings on issue No. 1 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and issue No. 3 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988 above, neither the petitioners nor the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to the grant of Probate in their favour. The two issues are decided accordingly. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in Probate Case No. 1 of 1988. During the course of hearing, both these issues were not pressed before me by the petitioners. The same are, as such, decided against them. Relief. 48. As a result of the above findings, both the petitions for probate, being Probate Case No. 1 of 1987 and Probate Case No. 1 of 1988 are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petitions dismissed.