Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 744 (MAD)

V. Thanikachalam v. J. Radhakrishnan

2000-07-31

A.SUBBULAKSHMY

body2000
Judgment : 1. Thetestatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal left some immovable property in the city of Madras. She lastly executed the Will dated 16. 1989 for the petitioners life and thereafter to be taken by his five sons viz., T.Rajendran, T.Ramesh, T.Kumar, T.Selvam and T.Loganathan absolutely in equal shares. The deceased did not appoint any executor under the Will and the plaintiff is the legatee under the Will. The testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal died on 23. 1990. The amount of assets which is likely to come to the plaintiffs hands does not exceed in the aggregate a sum of Rs.65,000 and the net amount of the said assets, after deducting all items which the plaintiff is by law allowed to deduct is only of the value of Rs.60,000. The plaintiff undertakes duly to administer the property and credits of Radha Rukmini Ammal in any way concerning her Will by paying first her debts and then the legacies therein bequeathed so far as the assets will extend and make a full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of grant of letters administration with the Will annexed to the plaintiff and also to render to this Court a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the said date. The deceased left her brothers son J.Radhakrishnan surviving her as her next of kin according to Hindu Law. The plaintiff has not made any application to any other High Court or District Court for probate of the Will. The plaintiff prays for letters of administration as the legatee of the deceased. 2. Thedefendant filed written statement contending as follows: The Will is not a genuine one and it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The suit property originally belonged to the defendants father Janakiram Mudaliar. It was purchased benami in the name of defendants mother Thirupurasundari Ammal. The defendant is the only son to his parents. The defendants father Janakiram Mudaliar had one brother by name Balakrishnan and one sister Radha Rukmini Ammal. The said Balakrishnan lived as a bachelor and passed away. Radha Rukmini Ammal also became a widow and she was issuless. In order to provide safety and security for her future life maintenance, the defendants father executed a sale deed through his wife Thirupurasundari Ammal in favour of the defendants aunt Radha Rukmini Ammal. The said Balakrishnan lived as a bachelor and passed away. Radha Rukmini Ammal also became a widow and she was issuless. In order to provide safety and security for her future life maintenance, the defendants father executed a sale deed through his wife Thirupurasundari Ammal in favour of the defendants aunt Radha Rukmini Ammal. It was the intention of the defendants father and Radha Rukmini Ammal that ultimately the property will come over to the defendant after the demise of Radha Rukmini Ammal. Radha Rukmini Ammal was living in a portion in the suit property and she let out the other portion and was collecting and realising rents from the tenants. The plaintiff became a tenant under Radha Rukmini Ammal on a monthly rent of Rs.200. After the death of Radha Rukmini Ammal, as the sole legal representative, the defendant became entitled to inherit the property. Only the defendant was attending to the needs of Radha Rukmini Ammal. Radha Rukmini Ammal wanted the defendant to go and live along with her after vacating the tenants including the plaintiff and she also directed the defendant to collect rents and evict the tenants on her behalf. The plaintiff has filed the suit to grab at the property. The plaintiff, in active collusion and connivance, conspired with his sons and other members of his family and forged a Will. The plaintiff along with their friends prepared a false and bogus Will and registered it on 25. 1989. The Will is not a genuine one. The plaintiff is not the legal heir of Radha Rukmini Ammal. The testatrix was very sick to understand or act under her own volition and she was not conscious and she was bedridden. The testatrix was not normal and the Will dated 16. 1989 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff is acting prejudicial to the interest of the testatrix. The suit has to be dismissed. 3. Onthe above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: .(1) Whether the Will dated 16. 1989 is true and valid document. .(2) Whether the Will dated 16. 1989 was obtained by undue influence and coercion. .(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration as claimed by him. .(4) To what relief. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for issue of letters of administration. The suit property belonged to the deceased Radha Rukmini Ammal. 1989 is true and valid document. .(2) Whether the Will dated 16. 1989 was obtained by undue influence and coercion. .(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration as claimed by him. .(4) To what relief. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for issue of letters of administration. The suit property belonged to the deceased Radha Rukmini Ammal. The plaintiff claims to be the adopted son of Radha Rukmini Ammal and contends that the testatrix executed the Will Ex.P-1 in his favour, he being the adopted son, giving life estate to him and thereafter the property to be taken by his five sons absolutely in equal shares and he being the legatee under the Will, is entitled to letters of administration asked for. 5. Admittedly Radha Rukmini Ammal had no issues. The defendant is the testatrixs brothers son. The defendant contends that the suit property originally belonged to his father and as the testatrix became widow, in order to provide safety and security, his father executed a sale deed in her favour through the defendants mother Thirupurasundari Ammal in respect of the suit property. He further contends that it was the intention of his father and his aunt Radha Rukmini Ammal that ultimately the property will come over to the defendant after the demise of Radha Rukmini Ammal and the defendant is the sole legal representative of the testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal and she never executed any such Will in favour of the plaintiff and she also did not take the plaintiff in adoption and the plaintiff is not entitled to letter of administration. 6. Theplaintiff filed two Wills Exs.P-1 and P-3. Ex.P-3 is the earlier Will dated 25. 1989 and Ex.P-1 is the later Will dated 16. 1989 alleged to have been executed by the testatrix. The plaintiff claims that Ex.P-1 is the last Will and testament of the testatrix and prays for issue of letters of administration in respect of Ex.P-1 Will. The case of the plaintiff is that under Ex.P-3 the earlier Will the plaintiff was not given any right and only his children were given right and so, the testatrix executed the Will Ex.P-1 as last Will and testament bequeathing life estate in favour of the plaintiff and absolute estate in favour of his five children. 7. The case of the plaintiff is that under Ex.P-3 the earlier Will the plaintiff was not given any right and only his children were given right and so, the testatrix executed the Will Ex.P-1 as last Will and testament bequeathing life estate in favour of the plaintiff and absolute estate in favour of his five children. 7. P.W.1 says that the attestors who attested the earlier Will Ex.P-3 have attested the last Will Ex.P-1 also and both the attestors are close friends of his family and only her mother Radha Rukmini Ammal executed the Will Ex.P-1 duly attested by the witnesses and it is a true and valid Will. The plaintiff filed prior documents Exs.P-4 to P-6 and states that the testatrix gave the original title deeds in respect of the suit property to him. He also filed Exs.P-7 to P-10 pro-notes and states that the testatrix was having money transactions and she only entrusted those documents to him. The plaintiffs original mother was Kannammal. The deceased testatrix is his adoptive mother. P.W.1 states that the deceased joined his father in 1945 and she was treated as his mother and she has no children through her first husband. The plaintiff relies on Exs.P-11 to P-14 letter correspondence between the deceased and his father and also Ex.P-15 pro-note executed by Balakrishnan Mudaliar in favour of the testatrix wherein the testatrix has described herself as the wife of the plaintiffs father and the said Balakrishna Mudaliar is only the brother of the plaintiffs father. Relying upon these documents, the defendant contends that the testatrix is his adoptive mother and he is her adopted son. 8. Absolutely there is no document to prove the adoption. In Ex.P-15 the testatrix is stated as the wife of Janakirama Mudaliar the father of the plaintiff. Exs.P-11 and P-12 are the letters addressed by the testatrix to Venugopala Mudaliar. Exs.P-13 and P-14 are the letters written by Venugopala Mudaliar to the testatrix. These documents do not reveal that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testatrix. Simply because in the pro-note Ex.P-15 and Exs.P-11 to P-14 it is stated that the testatrix is the wife of Venugopala Mudaliar, that will not conclusively establish that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testatrix. These documents do not reveal that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testatrix. Simply because in the pro-note Ex.P-15 and Exs.P-11 to P-14 it is stated that the testatrix is the wife of Venugopala Mudaliar, that will not conclusively establish that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testatrix. The plaintiff also filed documents Ex.P-17, voters list Exs.P-18 to P-20, Exs.P-21 and P-22 letters written by one of the tenants to the testatrix and notice sent by the testatrix Exs.P-23 and P-24. These documents do not establish the relationship between the parties. The plaintiff also filed the letter written by one of the tenants Ex.P-29 and the notice sent by the defendant Ex.P-30 calling upon the tenant to vacate and Ex.P-32 receipt obtained in the panchayat and also RCOP proceedings Exs.P-32 to P-38. 9. These documents are not helpful to the plaintiff to arrive at a conclusion that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the testatrix. Further this suit is filed for issue of letters of administration. What is to be decided in this suit is whether there is valid execution and attestation of Ex.P-1. The plaintiff has not whispered anything in the plaint with regard to his status as adopted son. He has simply stated with regard to immovable property vesting with the plaintiff and thereafter to be taken by his five sons. So, the plaint does not disclose with regard to the relationship of the plaintiff with the testatrix. P.W.1 also admitted this in his oral evidence. It is significant to note that the deceased Radha Rukmini Ammal was not related to the family of the plaintiff in the beginning. This is evident from the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 states that the deceased had associated with their family from 1945 and he does not know anything about the family background of the deceased prior to 1945 and he was aged about 3 years old in 1945. P.W.1 says that himself, his father and the deceased were living as members of one family. His evidence shows that he was having one sister, but she was not living with his father and he also does not know anything about the welfare of his sister and that sister by name Sarojini died about 10 years ago. P.W.1 says that himself, his father and the deceased were living as members of one family. His evidence shows that he was having one sister, but she was not living with his father and he also does not know anything about the welfare of his sister and that sister by name Sarojini died about 10 years ago. So, except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no evidence to prove with regard to the case of his adoption by the testatrix. The plaintiff has also not stated with regard to the marital status of the testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal with his father. His evidence shows that there was close association between his father and the testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal. The defendant is the testatrixs brothers son. He speaks in his evidence that her aunt Radha Rukmini Ammal lived as wife of Ramalingam Mudaliar till her death and he alone was under her care and custody as she had no children and there was no necessity to treat anybody else as her child and Radha Rukmini Ammal also did not tell him that the plaintiff is her adopted son. 10. P.W.1 states that only to show the relationship of the deceased with his father and also to show that the defendant borrowed money, the plaintiff filed Exs.P-8 to P-10. He states that the documents Exs.P-5 to P-10 were handed over to him after the execution of the Wills. These documents do not reveal that the plaintiff was adopted by the testatrix. P.W.1 himself says that Exs.P-10, P-11 and P14 are in his own handwriting and whenever the deceased used to address letters to his father, he used to write those letters and his mother would sign in those letters. Only the plaintiff was writing those letters. So, only the plaintiff is the author of those letters. So, those documents are only self-serving documents. 11. With regard to adopting claimed by the plaintiff, there is no evidence. P.W.1 does not know the date when he was adopted by the testatrix. His evidence shows that his father and the testatrix got illicit connection from 1945. He further admits that in his 12th age, he was informed about the adoption, but there was no function or any document for the adoption. So, absolutely, there is no evidence with regard to the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff. His evidence shows that his father and the testatrix got illicit connection from 1945. He further admits that in his 12th age, he was informed about the adoption, but there was no function or any document for the adoption. So, absolutely, there is no evidence with regard to the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff. The documents filed by the plaintiff are of no avail and they are not helpful to come to the conclusion with regard to the adoption pleaded by the plaintiff. Nothing in evidence transpires that the plaintiff is the adopted son of Radha Rukmini Ammal. 12. Even in Exs.P-1 and P-3, the testatrix Radha Rukmini Ammal is described as wife of Ramalingam Mudaliar and not the wife of Venugopala Mudaliar. In Ex.P-1 it is stated that she was living away from her husband and she has illicit intimacy with Venugopala Mudaliar and she was treated as one of the members of that family. It is further recited in Ex.P-1 that she is bequeathing the property to the plaintiff for his lifetime and then to be taken by his five sons. Even in Ex.P-1, the plaintiff is not described as adopted son. She herself admitted in the Will Ex.P-1 that she was having illicit intimacy with the father of the plaintiff Venugopala Mudaliar. If really, the plaintiff was taken in adoption by Radha Rukmini Ammal, she would have described the plaintiff adopted son in Ex.P-1. The testatrix has not described the plaintiff as adopted son in Ex.P-1. This also goes to establish that the plaintiff is not the adopted son of Radha Rukmini Ammal. P.W.1s evidence is that Radha Rukmini Ammal executed the Will Ex.P-1 bequeathing the property as life estate to him and absolute estate to his sons. He states that Radha Rukmini Ammal prepared the Will and after the Will was prepared it was read over to her and she told that it was correct and it was registered and at the time of preparing the Will, he accompanied Radha Rukmini Ammal and prior to that Radha Rukmini Ammal told about the writing of the Will to her relatives and for the first Will Ex.P-3, the document writer was approached and for Ex.P-1 Will, an advocate was approached. P.W.1 says that he does not know the reason as to why it was done so. P.W.1 says that he does not know the reason as to why it was done so. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove with regard to the relationship of the testatrix with the plaintiff. 13. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.2 and 3 the attestors to prove with regard to due execution and attestation. P.W.2 claims to be the family friend of the testatrix. He states that he used to go to the plaintiffs house and talk to Radha Rukmini Ammal. He states that Radha Rukmini Ammal told that due to her old age, she wanted to bequeath the property to her grandchildren. He states that she had written two Wills and both are registered at the Sub-Registrars office, Mylapore. P.W.2 states that the signature found in Ex.P-3 is that of Radha Rukmini Ammal and he signed in that Will as witness as required by her and while registering the Will, the Sub-Registrar read over the contents of the Will to her and she signed accepting its contents and she also talked to him about her second Will Ex.P-1. He further states that since in the first Will only her grandchildren were given right in the property, she wanted to write the second Will giving right to enjoy the property to her son the plaintiff and then to her grandchildren. P.W.2 says that he advised the testatrix to write the second Will after consulting a lawyer. P.W.2 says that in both the Wills Exs.P-1 and P-3, he signed as the first witness and the signatures of the testatrix and the witnesses found in Exs.P-1 and P-3 Wills are one and the same. P.W.2 does not know personally about the second witness. He says that at the time of execution of both the Wills, the testatrix, the plaintiff and the second witness had come by auto and the testatrix was hale and healthy at that time and she signed first in the Will and then only he signed. 14. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.2 states that he has not filed any document to prove his residence and employment. P.W.2 knows the testatrix only through the plaintiff and the plaintiff and P.W.2 were working as checking inspectors in P.T.C. He states that Radha Rukmini Ammal sent him word through messenger on 25. 1989 asking him to come to the Sub-Registrars office and on 25. P.W.2 knows the testatrix only through the plaintiff and the plaintiff and P.W.2 were working as checking inspectors in P.T.C. He states that Radha Rukmini Ammal sent him word through messenger on 25. 1989 asking him to come to the Sub-Registrars office and on 25. 1989, he went to the house of Radha Rukmini Ammal and from there, he went in cycle to the Sub-Registrars office. His further evidence is that when he went to their house at about 1.00 p.m. he saw that Radha Rukmini Ammal took a green colour paper and he thought it as the Will, but, even at that time, he did not read it over and he reached the Sub-Registrars office at about 1.30 p.m. onthat day and they all were at the Sub-Registrars office for about one hour and he read out the Will at the Sub-Registrars office. 15. The evidence of P.W.2 in the chief-examination has been completely shaken in the cross examination. Even after reaching the house of the testatrix, he did not read out the Will and only at the Sub-Registrars office, he read it out. He further states that the Sub-Registrar did not read it over to Radha Rukmini Ammal and he just asked her about her consent and the first Will was written by a document writer. His further evidence is that only now, he came to know that the document writers name is Anthony Nathan who was residing in the third house from his house and he had no contact with him and there was no necessity to tell the document writer that he signed in the Will. P.W.2 says that he signed on the reverse of first page of Ex.P-3 and in page 2 of the Will, he has written his name as per the instructions of the persons there. 16. On a perusal of Ex.P-3 it is seen that on the reverse of page 1 of Ex.P-3, P.W.2 has put his signature. In page 2, below the word witnesses, P.W.2 has not signed and the name of P.W.2 is written in capital letters. The signature of P.W.2 in page 2 is not available in the Will. So, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.2 that he has not attested the Will and there is no valid attestation in Ex.P-2. In page 2, below the word witnesses, P.W.2 has not signed and the name of P.W.2 is written in capital letters. The signature of P.W.2 in page 2 is not available in the Will. So, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.2 that he has not attested the Will and there is no valid attestation in Ex.P-2. Thesignature found on the reverse of page 1 of Ex.P-3 is that of P.W.2 and it is the signature of identifying witness at the time of registration. The signature of P.W.2 found on the reverse of page 1 of Ex.P-3 is the signature made at the time of registration of the Will Ex.P-3. Under the word witness, P.W.2 has not signed. Only his name is written in capital letters. The writing of the name in capital letters will not amount to attestation. Further, P.W.2s evidence also does not establish beyond suspicion that the testatrix had signed the Will. P.W.2s evidence is that when he went to their house, he saw that Radha Rukmini Ammal took a green colour paper and he thought it as the Will, but, even at that time, he did not read it over and he too went to the Sub-Registrars office and there only everything was done. The evidence of P.W.2 does not prove with regard to valid execution and attestation. 17. P.W.2 further states that after execution of the first Will, the testatrix told him that she wanted to writ the second Will giving right of enjoyment of the properties to her son and right to sell the property to her grandchildren and P.W.2 advised her to consult a lawyer. Even though P.W.2 claims to be an attestor for the later Will Ex.P-1, even with regard to execution of Ex.P-1, P.W.2s evidence is not satisfactory. He states that in the Will, as per the instructions of the persons who were present there, he signed and wrote his name. P.W.2s specific evidence is that he signed on the reverse of page 1 of the Will and in page 2, he has written his name and they were made only in the presence of the Sub-Registrar. He states that the persons who were present there asked to write his name in page 2 of the Will Ex.P-3 and his usual signature would be as that of the reverse of in page one of Exs.P-1 and P-3. He states that the persons who were present there asked to write his name in page 2 of the Will Ex.P-3 and his usual signature would be as that of the reverse of in page one of Exs.P-1 and P-3. In both the documents Exs.P-1 and P-3, in the last page below the the word witnesses, the name of P.W.2 is written in capital letters and he has not signed. Even on the reverse of page one of both the Wills, his signature is found as identifying witness at the time of registration. Those signatures will not amount to attestation of the Will. Clear suggestion was put to P.W.2 by the counsel for the defendant that P.W.2 has not only signed as identifying witness before the Sub-Registrar, but he has not signed anywhere in the Wills. P.W.2 denied that suggestion. P.W.2 admitted in his evidence that he has signed in Ex.P-1 as identifying witness before the Sub-Registrar. P.W.2 states that he saw the other attestor Nagammal attesting the Will. But, he states that P.W.3 Nagammals signature in Ex.P-3 is on the reverse of page 1 which is the signature of the identifying witness. The categorical admission of P.W.2 in his evidence that he singed only in the Sub-Registrars office goes to establish that P.W.2 did not attest the Will and he was not present at the time of execution of the Will and he did not see the testatrix executing the Will and he also did not attest the Will. The mere fact that P.W.2 has signed the Will at the time of registration as identifying witness will not prove valid execution and attestation. To prove true and valid execution and attestation, it must be established that both the testatrix and the attestors were present at the time of execution and the attestors saw signing the Will by the testatrix and the testatrix also saw the attestors signing the Will. These things are clearly absent in this case. 18. P.W.3s evidence is also not satisfactory to prove the valid execution and attestation. Even though she has spoken in her evidence that Radha Rukmini Ammal signed the Will and then she singed and she attested the Wills, the later part of her evidence shows that only in the Sub-Registrars office, at the instance of the testatrix, she singed the Will. P.W.3s evidence is also not satisfactory to prove the valid execution and attestation. Even though she has spoken in her evidence that Radha Rukmini Ammal signed the Will and then she singed and she attested the Wills, the later part of her evidence shows that only in the Sub-Registrars office, at the instance of the testatrix, she singed the Will. Her evidence shows that herself, the testatrix and her son went to the Sub-Registrars office and at the Sub-Registrars office, after Radha Rukmini Ammal signed, at her instance, she signed the Will and she is able to identify the signature of the testatrix. P.W.3 the other attestor states that she came to know about P.W.2 only at the time of registration of the Will and she had not seen P.W.2 at the house of the testatrix and she saw P.W.2 only in the Sub-Registrars office. Her evidence also goes to prove that P.W.2 was not present at the time of execution of the Will. P.W.3 further states that the testatrix did not tell her about the Will prior to her meeting at the Sub-Registrars office. The evidence of P.W.3 is that she met P.W.2 in the Sub-Registrars office and she does not remember as to who brought the Will to the Sub-Registrars office and she signed the Will in the Sub-Registrars office and Radha Rukmini Ammal also singed the Will only in the Sub-Registrars office and P.W.2 also signed the Will only in the Sub-Registrars office. All these things raise doubt with regard to genuineness of the Will. 19. P.W.3 is not able to say about the signature of P.W.2. She specifically states that she does not know the signature of P.W.2 in the Will, but she has signed the Will. She states that the testatrix signed on the reverse of page 1 of Ex.P-3 and she is not able to identify the signature of the testatrix in other places. Even though Radha Rukmini Ammal signed in other pages, the attesting witness who claims to be present and who speaks about execution and attestation, is not able to identify the signature of the testatrix in other places of the Will. She is also not able to identify the signature of P.W.2. Her categorical evidence is that she is not able to identify the signature of P.W.2. 20. She is also not able to identify the signature of P.W.2. Her categorical evidence is that she is not able to identify the signature of P.W.2. 20. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, I have no hesitation to hold that these witnesses do not speak about valid execution and attestation. P.W.3 the other attesting witness is not able to identify the signature of P.W.2 and she is not able to speak about her signature. It is also not borne out by evidence that these attestors were present at the time of execution of the Will. The signature of the attestor P.W.2 is found only as that of identifying witnesses at the time of registration. His signature is found only on the reverse of page 1 and not in the place of witnesses in the last page of the Wills. All these things cumulatively go to disprove the case of the plaintiff with regard to genuineness of the Will. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 leads to suspicion with regard to execution of the Will and that it is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The plaintiff has miserably failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not at all satisfactory to prove with regard to due execution and attestation. 21. The defendant as D.W.1 speaks in his evidence that the signature found in Exs.P-1 and P-3 is not her aunts signature and one letter in those singatures is missing and he came to know about the Will only after the rent control proceedings. The defendant disputes with regard to the signature of the testatrix in the Will. The evidence of D.W.1 is that the testatrix has not signed the Will. 22. The onus is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove that the testatrix had executed the Will in a sound disposing state of mind duly attested by the witnesses. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 does not prove valid execution and attestation of the Will and the execution of the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The relationship between the parties is not established. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the propounder has taken a predominant part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefit on him and it is also a suspicious circumstance. 23. The relationship between the parties is not established. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the propounder has taken a predominant part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefit on him and it is also a suspicious circumstance. 23. Counsel for the plaintiff cited the decision in V.S.Mane v. Ramachandra Vithal Ganeshkar and others V.S.Mane v. Ramachandra Vithal Ganeshkar and others V.S.Mane v. Ramachandra Vithal Ganeshkar and others J.T. (1995)7 S.C. 363, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the fact that the testatrix made the Will at the age of 50 cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstances reflecting on the genuineness of the Will. He has also cited the decision in Gopalan Nambiar v. Balakrishnan Nambiar (1991)2 S.C.C. (Supp.) 664 wherein the Apex Court has held that: “Though it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will and to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind.” The learned counsel has also cited the decision in Sonam Topgyal v. Gompu A.I.R. 1980 Sikkim 33 wherein the Sikkim High Court has held that: “The onus of explaining suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will lies heavily on the propounder. But, if the execution of the Will is not challenged but exercise of fraud or undue influence or coercion is alleged by the caveator then it is for the caveator to prove such fraud, undue influence or coercion.” 24. In the case on hand, as I have already indicated, there is no proof with regard to adoption of the plaintiff by the testatrix. The plaintiff was not already related to the testatrix. The plaintiff claims purely on the basis of adoption pleaded by him for which there is no proof. There is also no evidence to prove that the testatrix was taken care of by the plaintiff and out of love and affection, the testatrix executed the Will valid execution and attestation is also not proved. The way in which P.Ws.2 and 3 have deposed and the demeanour of the witnesses and also the surrounding circumstances as well as probabilities go to establish that P.Ws.2 and 3 are not trustworthy witnesses. The evidence adduced must satisfy the courts conscience. The way in which P.Ws.2 and 3 have deposed and the demeanour of the witnesses and also the surrounding circumstances as well as probabilities go to establish that P.Ws.2 and 3 are not trustworthy witnesses. The evidence adduced must satisfy the courts conscience. The evidence let in this case shakes the conscience of this Court and it is not satisfactory to prove the genuineness of the Will. The Apex Court has held in Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur (1977) 1 S.C.C. 369 that: “In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the courts conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will.” It is also borne out by evidence that the plaintiff has taken prominent part in the execution of the Will. The Apex Court has held in Ramchandra v. Champabai A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 354 that: “In all cases in which a Will is prepared under circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the court that it does not express the mind of the testator, or that it was prepared under highly suspicious circumstances, it is for the propounder of the Will to remove that suspicion. Where it appears that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefits on him, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Sec.63 of the Succession Act. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the Will as genuine. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accepts the Will as genuine. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. Held after considering the circumstances that the High Court was right in rejecting the evidence of the attesting witnesses and the scribe as well as of the propounder of the Will with regard to the execution of the Will by the testator.” In the matter of Vipin Parera v. David Laughran and another Vipin Parera v. David Laughran and another Vipin Parera v. David Laughran and another (1999)3 S.C.C. 238 (M.P.) it has been held that: “The propounder of the Will has to satisfy the conscience of the court by dispelling the suspicious circumstances. The court may have a reasonable skcepticism but cannot dwell on adamantine obstinacy. The court has also to abandon the coleridgean concept of willing suspicious or disbelief. The approach has to be conscious, probing, rational, objective and necessarily that of a person in search of truth-the truth, as far one an scan to arrive applying the parameters of human experience.” In Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 74, it has been held by the Supreme Court that: “In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the courts conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will. Held, on facts and circumstances that the propounder had totally failed to discharge the heavy onus of explaining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and of establishing that the document which he propounded was the last Will and testament of his grandfather. Held, on facts and circumstances that the propounder had totally failed to discharge the heavy onus of explaining the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and of establishing that the document which he propounded was the last Will and testament of his grandfather. The Supreme Court has held in Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb (1962)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 27 that: “Even where there were no allegations of undue influence, fraud or coercion, if the circumstances attending the execution of a Will gave rise to doubts, it was for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a Will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the Will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the Will after knowing that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting. Therefore, the bald fact of registration of the Will is insufficient to dispel the suspicions attending the due execution and attestation of the Will and no letters of administration in favour of the respondent can be granted on the basis of it.” 25. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws., I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act has not been complied with. Valid execution and attestation have not been established in this case. The facts and circumstances of the case establish that the Will was prepared under circumstances which arouse suspicion of the court and it is surrounded by highly suspicious circumstances, viz., the relationship between the parties was not established and execution and attestation of the Will have not been established. Valid execution and attestation have not been established in this case. The facts and circumstances of the case establish that the Will was prepared under circumstances which arouse suspicion of the court and it is surrounded by highly suspicious circumstances, viz., the relationship between the parties was not established and execution and attestation of the Will have not been established. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is not satisfactory to prove with regard to valid execution and attestation and the evidence of attesting witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 have to be rejected in toto because the signature of the attesting witnesses are not found on the last page of the Will after the word witnesses and the attestors have signed only at the time of registration on the reverse of page 1 of Exs.P-1 and P-3 and the fact that the name of the first attestor P.W.2 is written in capital letters on the last page of the Will leave no doubt to come to the conclusion that there is no proper attestation of the Will. 26. The circumstances surrounding the Will viz., the relationship between the parties, nature of executing the Will, non proving of valid execution and attestation, the propounder of the Will evincing much interest in the execution of the Will, all these things cumulatively go to establish that the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove with regard to genuineness of the Will. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to letters of administration. 27. In the result, the suit is dismissed. No costs.