Honble SHARMA, J. – Instant appeal impugns the judgment and decree dt. 9.1.1981 of the District Judge, Jaipur City, whereby the petition of the appellant seeking probate of the alleged will of deceased Ganga Singh was dismissed. (2). The core question which requires consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant had been able to prove that the document (Ex. 1) was ever executed by Ganga Singh and was his last will and testament. (3). This question has emerged in the circumstances set out below :– (i) Petition u/s. 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short the Act) was filed by the appellant Manhar Kumari for grant of probate in the Court of District Judge Jaipur City on 26.8.1975 stating therein that Kanwar Ganga Singh, resident of House No. 307 Rasta Bhaisawalo, Chowkari Ganga Pole, Jaipur, died on 3.9.1965. Kr. Ganga Singh on 27.6.1965 executed his last will and testament. The appellant Manhar Kumari was named in the will as `person to whom the property (House No. 307 Chowkari Ganga Pole Jaipur) was bequeathed and was the sole executrix under the will. (ii) Smt. Govind Kanwar, the wife of the deceased Ganga Singh submitted reply with the averments that the alleged will was a forged document. Ganga Singh was survived by her and her three daughters Brijraj Kanwar, Rajni Kanwar and Jyoti Kumari. House No. 307 was purchased by Ganga Singh from Manhar Kanwar in consideration of Rs. 20,000/- through a registered sale deed executed on 21.5.1962. Looking to the helplessness of widow Manhar Kumari, Ganga Singh, permitted her to reside as tenant in one room of the said house at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month as rent. As the other portion of the said house was also in the possession of the tenants, Ganga Singh used to reside with her and her daughters in `Devi Bhawan situated in `Shriji Ki Mori. Smt. Govind Kanwar further pleaded that even after the death of her husband Ganga Singh, she has been receiving rent from the tenant and paying the water and electricity charges, house tax etc. She recovered possession of the certain portion of the house through- the process of the Court and was never objected by Manhar Kumari and Manhar Kumari during the entire period accepted her as the owner of the said house. She recovered possession of the certain portion of the house through- the process of the Court and was never objected by Manhar Kumari and Manhar Kumari during the entire period accepted her as the owner of the said house. Even the will was unnatural on the ground that no reference of her and her daughters was made in it. The peti- tion also deserved to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay. (iii) Learned District Judge framed as many as three issues thus- (a) Whether deceased Ganga Singh on 26.6.1965 executed will in favour of the petitioner ? If yes, whether it was the duly executed last testament of the deceased ? (b) Whether the non-petitioner could not raise objection as she did not enter into caveat? (c) Relief. (iv) Manhar Kumari examined herself and three other witnesses Ram Gopal PW 2, Ninesh Rai PW 3 and Lal Chand Advocate PW 4 whereas Smt. Govind Kanwar recorded her statement as well as the statement of Fateh Singh NAW 2, Jani Mal NAW 3 and Shri Krishna Charan NAW4. (v) Learned District Judge decided all the issues against Manhar Kumari and dismissed her petition as already stated hereinabove. (4). Learned District Judge in the judgment impugned noticed the following suspicious circumstances and held that the will was not proved to be genuine document executed by Ganga Singh- (i) Ganga Singhs signatures on the will in question appear as free sig- natures and the last two lines are nearer to each other, otherwise in the ordinary course the contents of the will would have overlapped the signatures of Ganga Singh. In addition to it, there is no date under the signatures of Ganga Singh as well as the signatures of Lal Chand Advocate the scribe of the will. (ii) Lal Chand the scribe of the will was practising advocate of Pali and appeared as counsel for Ganga Singh in the matter of payment of compensation for resumption of Jagirs in the year 1962. His presence in Jaipur at the time of execution of will appeared doubtful. Lal Chand was the scribe of another will alleged to have been executed by one Virendra Singh, nephew (Bhanja) of Ganga Singh and Manhar Kumari was the witness of the said will. Application for probate was also dismissed by the Court disbelieving the testimony of Lal Chand and Manhar Kumari. Lal Chand was the scribe of another will alleged to have been executed by one Virendra Singh, nephew (Bhanja) of Ganga Singh and Manhar Kumari was the witness of the said will. Application for probate was also dismissed by the Court disbelieving the testimony of Lal Chand and Manhar Kumari. (iii) Witness Ninesh Rai and Ram Gopal were interested witnesses and their presence at the time of execution of the will appeared doubtful. (iv) Manhar Kumari admitted in her statement that she did not inform Govind Kanwar about the alleged will till 1975 and she used to withdraw rent from 1962 till 1975 from the Govt. showing herself as tenant in the said house. (v) Manhar Kumari stated in her statement that Ganga Singh executed rent deed in her favour but the said document was not produced in the Court by her. (vi) The delay of ten years in filing the probabe-petition was not satis- factorily explained. (vii) Disinteresting his wife and three daughters by Ganga Singh in the alleged will was unnatural. (5). With regard to proof of the will, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Guro vs. Atma Singh (1), propounded thus– "The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the will proof of testamentary capacity and signatures of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however there were suspicious circumstances the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may be a shaky signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of property or the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator." (6). Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the, appellant Manhar Kumari canvassed that the appellant discharged the onus as required by law and proved the will in question. She explained to the satisfaction of the Court that the will was a genuine document. Testimony of Lal Chand was wrongly disbelieved. Mr. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing for the, appellant Manhar Kumari canvassed that the appellant discharged the onus as required by law and proved the will in question. She explained to the satisfaction of the Court that the will was a genuine document. Testimony of Lal Chand was wrongly disbelieved. Lal Chand was consulted to scribe the will by Ganga Singh as he was Ganga Singhs counsel in a compensation case. The observation of the Court below that Ganga Singh might have left blank paper signed by him with Lal Chand is based on conjectures as there was no such suggestion in his cross examination that signatures of Ganga Singh were genuine and the contents were inserted later on. Learned lower Court erroneously disbelieved the testimony of Manhar Kumari, Naresh Rai and Ram Gopal. The discrepancy in the statements of witnesses is of minor nature. The pre- sence of both the attesting witnesses was natural. They were called by Ganga Singh. Entire finding of the Court below is based on surmises and conjectures and deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the following authorities- (i) 1995 (5) SCC 215 (2) (ii) AIR 1982 SC 132 (3) (iii) 1966 RLW 197 (4) (iv) AIR 1915 PC 96 (5) (v) RLR 1969 Page 107 (6) (7). I have carefully scanned the record in the light of arguments advanced before me. A perusal of alleged will (Ex. 1) demonstrates that wife of the testator Govind Kanwar and three daughters were practically disinherited. In Mt. Biro vs. Atma Ram (7) the Privy Council had an occasion to consider an analogous case. Considering the circumstances the Privy Council, observed (at page 104) thus– "It is most unlikely that a person having a wife and a minor unmarried daughter, who should be the objects of his affection, would make a will which would practically disinherit them.... the testament is unnatural and runs counter to the ordinary sentimates of persons.... But this is not the only circumstance which tells against its genuineness. The will purports to have been executed on 24.8.1900 and the testator died within a month of that date. But it is strange that it was not produced until 1922 after the commencement of the present litigation. But this is not the only circumstance which tells against its genuineness. The will purports to have been executed on 24.8.1900 and the testator died within a month of that date. But it is strange that it was not produced until 1922 after the commencement of the present litigation. During the long period of 22 years, which intervened, there was occasion when the widow or her advisors could have produced the document, if it had been in existence, but they did not do so..." The will (Ex. 1) in the case on hand, constituting Manhar Kumari as a sole legatee with no right whatsoever to the testators wife and daughters appears to be unnatural. Ex. A2 is the certified copy of the statement of deceased Ganga Singh recorded in Civil Suit No. 387/62 on 4.7.1963. In the said statement Ganga Singh stated that his father died on 5.3.1963 leaving behind him a Haveli in which Ganga Singh had a share, in the alleged will share of this Haveli was not bequeathed to any one. Even the reference of this property did not find place in the will. It casts a serious doubt on genuineness of the will. The will has not been produced for very many years before the Court even though there were occasion to produce it for asserting the title of the property. Till the application for obtaining probate was filed, Manhar Kumari used to draw rent from the government showing herself tenant in the property. When after the death of Ganga Singh, his wife Govind Kanwar was managing the property referred in the will, Manhar Kumari never infor- med her that will was executed in her favour. Manhar Kumari did not explain in the petition the reasons for filing the said petition after about ten years. However, she stated before the Court below that Lal Chand Vakil kept the said will with him and only handed over it five years back. Statement of Manhar Kumari was recorded before the Court below on 1.8. 1979. The only explanation gave by Manhar Kumari before the Court below was that she was having good relations with Govind Kanwar as such there was delay in filing the petition. She further stated that Ganga Singh even purchasing the said house, was her tenant and executed rent deed in her favour and used to pay rent to her at the rate of Rs. She further stated that Ganga Singh even purchasing the said house, was her tenant and executed rent deed in her favour and used to pay rent to her at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month. This statement of Manhar Kumari appears to be false in the light of the statement of Ganga Singh (Ex. A2) recorded on 4.7.1963 in Civil Suit No. 387/62 instituted by Ganga Singh against tenant Chetan Das. In the said statement Ganga Singh stated thus : ^^eugj dqekjh blh edku esa jgrh gSA og fdjk;snkj gSA fdjk;kukek edku ysus ij fy[kk fy;k gSA mlds ikl ,d dejk 30 #i;s ij gSA eSaus bUgsa [kkyh djus dks dg j[kk gSA mUgksaus dgk edku feyus ij [kkyh dj nsxhA^^ The learned Court below rightly drawn adverse inference against Manhar Kumari as she did not produce rent deed executed by Ganga Singh to support her contention. The explanation given by Manhar Kumari that she could not file the petition early on account of cordial relation with Govind Kanwar does not appear to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Manhar Kumari admi- tted in her statement that– ^^gkml VsDl ij fcy xaxkflag ds ejus ds ckn xksfoUn dkSj Hkjrh gSA xksfoUn dkSj us xaxkflag ds ejus ds ckn rksykjke fdjk,nkj ds fo#) csn[kyh dh fMØh gkfly dhA jkeI;kjh dks Hkh mlus fdjk,nkj j[kkA** Manhar Kumari also admitted that : ^^eSa lu~ 1962 ls lu~ 1975 lk xouZesUV ls gkml jsaV mBkrh jgh gwWaA** Suspicion, therefore, arises as to when will was executed in her favour in 1965. Why Manhar Kumari used to draw rent till 1975 and why she allowed Govind Kanwar as landlord and did not assert her rights as owner of the property. During the long period of 10 years, which intervened, there were occasions when Manhar Kumari or her advisor could have produced the will, if it had been in existence, but they did not do so. (8). This is the admitted case of the parties that Lal Chand Advocate was also the scribe of another will alleged to have been executed by one Virendra Singh (nephew of Ganga Singh) and Manhar Kumari was one of the attesting witnesses of the said will. (8). This is the admitted case of the parties that Lal Chand Advocate was also the scribe of another will alleged to have been executed by one Virendra Singh (nephew of Ganga Singh) and Manhar Kumari was one of the attesting witnesses of the said will. Manhar Kumari also admits this fact in her statement : – ^^xaxkflag ds Hkkuts fojsUnz flag dh olh;r ykypUn us fy[kh Fkh o eSaus mlesa lk[k Mkyh FkhA mldk izkscsV dk dsl pyk Fkk ftlesa xokgh nh FkhA ;gkWa izkscsV dh nj[okLr [kkfjt gqbZ fojsUnz flag us egsUnz flag ds gd esa olh;r dh Fkh og vkt esjs lkFk vk;k gSA** Admittedly, petition seeking probate filed by Mahendra Singh was dismissed by the learned District Judge Jaipur City on 21.3.1979. Mahendra Singh preferred Civil Misc. Appeal before this Court which was dismissed on 11.12.1987. The decision Mahendra Singh vs. Amba Kanwar was published RLW 1989 (1) 498 (8). This Court (Honble I.S. Israni J. as he then was) discussed the testimony of Smt. Manhar Kumari and Lal Chand Advocate in that case thus– "PW 2 Manhar Kanwari one of the attesting witness in her statementhas stated that Mahendra Singh PW 1 and deceased testator lived toge- ther which is contrary to what PW 1 has himself stated. She further states in her cross examination that deceased testator had himself given the pie-paper to Lal Chand Advocate for writing the will which is also contrary to what PW 1 states. The witness further says that she has been able to remember the date 25.5.1974 because the death of the testator took place on 12.6.1974. However, she is not able to give any other date even regarding her work in school, where she serves as a teacher ... She further states that she and deceased Virendra Singh signed with the same pen with which the will was written. She was shown the original will and after seeing she admitted that the signatures of deceased Virendra Singh was in a different ink... PW 3 Lal Chand Advocate is the scribe of the will. In cross examination, he states that on the day the will was written by him, he came to Jaipur in connection with five to six cases but could not given name of any case nor the Court in which the same were pending.... PW 3 Lal Chand Advocate is the scribe of the will. In cross examination, he states that on the day the will was written by him, he came to Jaipur in connection with five to six cases but could not given name of any case nor the Court in which the same were pending.... He has explained the difference in the ink, the writing of the will by stating that the flow of the ink in the pen became slow which he had corrected afterwards." Disbelieving the testimony of Lalchand Advocate and Smt. Manhar, this Court dismissed the appeal of Mahendra Singh. (9). Judgment of Mahendra Singhs case (supra) is relevant to the case on hand to the extent that it throws light on the relationship of Smt. Manhar Kumari and Lal Chand Advocate. A perusal of Mahendra Singhs case (supra) shows that testator Virendra Singh in the said case expired on 12.6.1974. The will was said to have been executed by him in favour of Mahendra Singh on 25.5.1974. Lal Chand Advocate was scribe of the will and Smt. Manhar was attesting witness. In the case on hand Smt. Manhar filed the petition seeking probate of alleged will of Ganga Singh on 26.8.1975 and when her statement was recorded in the Court below, Mahendra Singh was present in the Court. Therefore it appears that Lal Chand Advocate, Smt. Manhar and Mahendra Singh knew each other very well and they had some interests in common. (10). Respondent Smt. Govind Kanwar examined Shri Krishna Charan NAW 4, a hand writing expert, who on the basis of enlarged photographs deposed that the signatures on the will were not of the same person whose signatures appeared in the sale deed Ex. A 75, This witness further stated that in Ex. 1 first the signatures in portion A to B was prepared and lateron the body writing of the will was written. (11). Lal Chand Advocate, in his statement stated that he lived in MI,A Quarters Jaipur till 1964. Ganga Singh himself came to call him for writing the will but he did not charge fee from him. Lal Chand Advocate belongs to Beawar and is a practising Advocate of Pali. This sounds rather strange that an advocate shall perform journey all the way from Pali to Jaipur for writing a will and shall not charge his fee. Ganga Singh himself came to call him for writing the will but he did not charge fee from him. Lal Chand Advocate belongs to Beawar and is a practising Advocate of Pali. This sounds rather strange that an advocate shall perform journey all the way from Pali to Jaipur for writing a will and shall not charge his fee. Lal Chand Advocate also did not say that the will was kept by him and he delivered the said will to Smt. Manhar after 10 years. (12). A further perusal of will (Ex. 1) reveals that age of Ganga Singh at the time of execution of will was only 40 years. He was shown in the will as heart patient whereas his wife Govind Kanwar and his cousin Fateh Singh (NAW 2) cate-gorically stated that Ganga Singh never suffered from heart ailments. Therefore sus- picion arose that why Ganga Singh at the age of 40 years had thought to execute a will. (13). The attesting witnesses of the will were rightly disbelieved by the Court below. According to Manhar Kumari, Ganga Singh had gone to call them whereas Ninesh Ray (PW 3) witness stated that he and Ram Gopal went together and Ganga Singh was not with them. He admitted that he earlier wrote 75 and thereafter corrected it as 65. When he reached Lal Chand was writing the will. Witness Ram Gopal (PW 2) on the other hand stated that after he reached the house of Ganga Singh Lal Chand started writing the will. He admitted that his son was adopted by Manhar Kumari. He further admitted that it was Lal Chand, Advocate who prepared papers in respect of adoption of his son. Thus, it is evident that both the attesting witnesses were having interest in Manhar Kumari. Ninesh Rai is the brother of Manhar Kumari, whereas Ram Gopals son was adopted by Manhar Kumari. (14). I have myself perused the writing and signatures on the Ex. 1. Last two lines above the alleged signatures of Ganga Singh are very near to each other and it appears that scribe made attempt to complete the sentence just above the signatures in order to prevent overlapping the writing and the signatures. The words of last two lines just above the alleged signatures of Ganga Singh appear to be smaller in comparison to the words of other lines. (15). The words of last two lines just above the alleged signatures of Ganga Singh appear to be smaller in comparison to the words of other lines. (15). Indisputably, there are suspicious circumstances in the case on hand and the appellant Manhar Kumari was required to remove these suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record. I am unable to pursuade myself with the contentions raised by Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The authorities cited by the learned counsel are of no help to the appe- llant in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the considered view that the appellant could not remove suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record and she has failed to discharge her duty. I therefore, concur with the conclusion of the learned District Judge and hold that the alleged will Ex. 1 cannot be accepted as the genuine one. (16). In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.