Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 419 (MAD)

P. v. Bhagirathi VS Shubha Rao

2001-04-02

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2001
Judgment :- 1. This suit has been filed for issue of a probate in respect of the Last Will and Testament dated 4.3.79 executed by P. Vadhiraja Rao, who died on 4.12.1986. 2. Plaint averments are as follows: The husband of the plaintiff Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao died on 4.12.86 at St. Isabels hospital, Madras. He executed his last will and testament on 4.3.1979 in the presence of the witnesses. One of the attesting witnesses S. Thirunavukarasu died since then. Plaintiff is the executor named in the Will. The testator had one son P.V. Srinivas, and one daughter Shubha, the defendant herein. During his life time, the defendant was given in marriage to Dr. B.K. Raghavendra Rao, a well settled dentist at Bangalore. At that time she was given a lot of gold jewellery, silver articles, and various other things of value. There was no occasion to probate the Will after the death of the testator, as the only two persons interested in the immovable property had no disagreements. Minor troubles have been created in the family by disputes among the family members. Hence the plaintiff wants to get a probate and discharge her duties. The testator suffered a heart ailment in 1977. In 1979, he went to U.S. and underwent treatment at enormous expenses. After his return, he did only very light work. She undertakes to duly administer the property and credits of the testator. Hence the suit. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it is alleged that the petition for grant of probate is not maintainable as the unreasonable delay in filing the petition has not been explained. The plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands. She is the daughter of late Dr. Vadiraja Rao. Dr. Vadiraja Rao expired on 4.12.1986 when he was under the active care and custody of the plaintiff and his son, after suffering prolonged serious heart ailment. The alleged will is certainly a got up document. It is alleged to have been executed seven years earlier to his death. Dr. Vadiraja Rao would never have denied the defendant her rightful claim admissible under law. She was 14 years old, when the Will was alleged to have been executed. In 1979 her marriage was not even in contemplation. The alleged will is certainly a got up document. It is alleged to have been executed seven years earlier to his death. Dr. Vadiraja Rao would never have denied the defendant her rightful claim admissible under law. She was 14 years old, when the Will was alleged to have been executed. In 1979 her marriage was not even in contemplation. The property which could be considered to be the subject matter of the alleged will can, at best, be the residential house property only and not the entire property, in dispute which was developed after his death. The names of the legal heirs/successors of Dr. Vadiraja Rao were entered in the Official/Municipal records. From 1986 onwards till date she is one of the co-sharers of the property having sole right and interest in the entire property so far as her share is concerned. The plaintiff, her son and the defendant with a view to develop the property approached the Karnataka Bank for loan. The Bank sanctioned loans jointly to all the three. From the loan availed, fresh commercial portion of the property was constructed and the said Bank has been paying the proportionate rent to all the three. She had been paid Rs. 5000/- per month as 1/3 rd share of rent, until the loan was repaid and thereafter she has been paid Rs. 6400/- per moth till date being her such 1/3 share. Besides the portion in the occupation of the Bank, other portions of the commercially developed building have been let out to M/s Helios and M/s Insight. For the further sanction of loan in 1989, she has been one of the joint applicants and on her signature, the bank sanctioned the loan. Hence it would not be the subject matter of the Will. It is true that some talks of settlement took place and the terms of settlement were almost finalised, under which the plaintiff was sought to be given life interest in the residential portion built by Dr. Vadiraja Rao and the Commercial portion was to be divided 50:50 equally to the son of Vadjraja Rao and the defendant. But the plaintiff and her son backed out of the settlement. Her father died on 4.12.1986 and O.P. was filed after 11 years i.e. in the year 1997. The loan availed from the Bank was discharged by them. Vadiraja Rao and the Commercial portion was to be divided 50:50 equally to the son of Vadjraja Rao and the defendant. But the plaintiff and her son backed out of the settlement. Her father died on 4.12.1986 and O.P. was filed after 11 years i.e. in the year 1997. The loan availed from the Bank was discharged by them. After discharge of the entire loan, the defendant is receiving the 1/3rd share of rent even today at an enhanced rate. Dr. Vadiraja Rao was staying under the active care and custody of the plaintiff and her son, all through particularly in the last days of his life. The execution of the alleged Will on 4.3.1979 is denied and it was not acted upon immediately after the death of the testator and was given a go bye at the time of changing the records and for full period of 11 years thereafter. The plaintiff is not the executor of the alleged Will. The defendant was married during the life time of Dr. Vadiraj Rao in a be fitting manner. Immediately after the death of the testator, the plaintiff got the names of his successors entered in the Municipal records and the Bank insisted on the signature of all the three co-owners including the defendant. Dr. Vadiraja Rao had spent reasonable amount for the marriage of the defendant as any respectable parent would do. The performance of her marriage can never be the reason for denying her rightful share to the properties under law. The O.P. Which has been filed after 12 years of the testators death lacks in bonafides and is bereft of truth. Hence the suit maybe dismissed with exemplary costs. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were formed: (1) Whether the Will dated 4.3.79 and executed by Dr. Vadiraja Rao is true and valid? (2) Whether the Will executed by Dr. Vadiraja Rao is genuine? (3) Whether the Will was executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind? 5. Issues 1 to 3: The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking for grant of probate alleging that her husband Dr. P. Vadiraja Rao executed his Last Will and Testament on 4.3.1979 at Madras. 6. One of the attesting witnesses viz Mr. V. Mohan Rao was examined as P.W.1. He would depose that Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao was his doctor and family friend. P. Vadiraja Rao executed his Last Will and Testament on 4.3.1979 at Madras. 6. One of the attesting witnesses viz Mr. V. Mohan Rao was examined as P.W.1. He would depose that Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao was his doctor and family friend. He knew him more than thirty five years, Ex.P1 is the Will executed by Dr. Vadhiraja Rao, which contains the signature of Vadhiraja Rao. He also attested the document. Along with him one Thirunavukkarasu also attested. Ex.P1 contains his signature and the signature of the other. The Will was executed in his residence. He saw Vadhiraja Rao signing the Will. Thirunavukkarasu also saw Vadhiraja Rao signing the Will. Dr. Vadhiraja Rao saw himself and the other attestor signing the document. The other witness Thirunavukkarasu is no more. Dr. Vadiraja Rao was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of Ex.P1. Dr. Vadiraja Rao continued to practise even after the execution of the Will. He knew the members of the family of the said Doctor. The members had cordial relationship with the testator. 7. Mr. T.M. Muthukumar, son of the other attesting witness Mr. Thirunavukkarusu, was examined as P.W.2. His evidence is that his father Thirunavukkarasu died in 1992. His father had signed in Ex.P1. His father had issued Ex.P2 cheque. The address and other particulars of his father under Ex.P1 are in the handwriting of his father. Dr. Vadiraja Rao was their family physician. 8. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.3. She would state that her husband had executed a Will. He did not tell her about the contents of the Will. He also did not discuss with her before executing the Will. Her husband who was a Doctor was practising since 1944 and he died in 1986. Till one week prior to his death, he was practising. He was in a sound and disposing state of mind. Out of his own free will he executed the Will. Her daughter got married in 1983. Her daughters marriage was performed in a grand scale. Her son-in-law is a dentist at Bangalore. They gave lot of jewels to the daughter at the time of marriage. Even now she is in cordial terms with her daughter. Her husband went to U.S.A. in 1979 for bye pass surgery. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary given by the hospital. Her daughters marriage was performed in a grand scale. Her son-in-law is a dentist at Bangalore. They gave lot of jewels to the daughter at the time of marriage. Even now she is in cordial terms with her daughter. Her husband went to U.S.A. in 1979 for bye pass surgery. Ex.P3 is the discharge summary given by the hospital. His 60th birthday was celebrated and he had made writing in the diary under Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is the presentation list for the 60th birthday. Ex.P6 series is the album relating to the photos. The receipt for payment of profession tax is marked as Ex.P7. The driving license of her husband is marked as Ex.P8. Ex.P9 and P10 and diaries maintained by her husband for the year 1985-1986. Ex.P12 is the day book, for the year 1985-1986, Ex.P1 contains her husbands signature. She did not take steps for probating the Will immediately because it was much expensive and since she has one daughter and one son there may not be any problem even if the Will is not probated. Now her daughter is giving some trouble and hence she was forced to probate the Will. 9. The defendant examined herself as DW.1. Her evidence is that her father treated her and her brother equally. Even after her marriage, she stayed with her parents and completed her studies. Her relationship with her parents and brother was cordial. She was 14 years old in 1979. Her father died in December 1986. Prior to that he did not tell her that he executed any Will. He was regularly maintaining diaries. From 1974-1975, her father was having heart ailment. Her mother was always taking care of her father. Her father was always influenced by her mother. After 1985. she joined her husband. Ex.D1 is the legal heirship certificate obtained by her mother. They are joint owners of the suit property. After her fathers death, they changed the Corporation Registry in favour of their names. Neither her brother nor her mother told her about the existence of the Will. In 1989, her mother took steps to develop the vast land in front portion of the property by obtaining loan from Karnataka Bank. Herself and her mother jointly mortgaged the property with Karnataka Bank. Ex.D3 is the copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. She also signed in Ex.D3 as one of the mortgagors. In 1989, her mother took steps to develop the vast land in front portion of the property by obtaining loan from Karnataka Bank. Herself and her mother jointly mortgaged the property with Karnataka Bank. Ex.D3 is the copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. She also signed in Ex.D3 as one of the mortgagors. All the three of them applied under Ex.D2 for the sanctioning of a building plan for approval. After completion of the construction of the commercial complex, they decided to lease out a part of the building to Kartanaka Bank. Ex.D4 is the copy of the lease agreement. She also signed in Ex.D4. In 1989, she executed power of attorney in favour of her mother. They have also leased out to Insight Advertising and Communications Pvt. Ltd. under Ex.D6. Ex.D8 is a copy of the rental agreement for having leased out another portion to Helios Systems and Software. Her brother sent her share of rent of Rs. 5000/- under Ex.D9., letter addressed to her husband. Ex. D10 is another letter under which her brother sent a DD for Rs. 5000/-. After October 1983, he has not sent any share of rental income to her. Ex.D11 is the letter sent by her to Karnataka Bank cancelling the power of attorney executed in favour of her mother. Ex.D12 is the letter sent to her mother. Ex.D13 is a letter sent by Kamataka Bank informing that it should be done by deed of cancellation. She gave reply under Ex.D14. Ex.D15 is the reminder letter to Kartanaka Bank. Under Ex.D17, the bank has considered with regard to cancellation of the power of attorney. Ex.D18 is the letter from the Kamataka Bank, asking for renewal of the lease deed, enclosing a demand draft copy of which is Ex.D19. She asked them to provide accounts under Ex.D20. Ex.D21 is the letter written to her by the bank along with the statement of accounts Ex.D22. Ex.D23 is the letter from the Bank. Ex.D5 is the lease agreement executed by her. Ex. D24 is the letter from the bank stating that they will pay her directly her share of rent. Ex.25 is the letter from the bank. Ex.D26 is the letter from the bank towards payment of her 1/3 rd share of rent. Initially the bank was paying her Rs. 1,325/- and after the loan was repaid, her share of rent was Rs. 6378/-. Ex.25 is the letter from the bank. Ex.D26 is the letter from the bank towards payment of her 1/3 rd share of rent. Initially the bank was paying her Rs. 1,325/- and after the loan was repaid, her share of rent was Rs. 6378/-. Ex.D27 is the letter to the Bank. Till May 2000 they have been paying her rent. Ex.D28 is her initial reminder to the Bank. Despite the objection by her mother, the bank continued to pay her share of rent. Ex.P1 Will was not executed by her father. Her father never contemplated for the terms contained in the Will and the Ex.P1 is the concocted one. They wanted to settle the matter. She suggested for 50% of the land to be given to her for her share and rental income of 2 and 3. Her brother agreed to pay her rent only, and he did not want to give her 50% of the land. She prepared for a fair compromise. Ex.D29 series is the letter received from the Bank., informing that on the instruction of their brother and mother, they have stopped payment of rent belonging to her share from May 2000. Ex.D29 includes the xerox copies of the agreement between her mother and brother and Kamataka Bank. Ex.D30 series is the office copy of a telegram dated 19.8.2000 to the Bank. 10. Mr. Aswad Sultana was examined as C.W1. He would depose that Ex.C1 is the letter written by the Tahsildar Mylapore-Triplicane Taluk to the Assistant Registrar (O.S.), Chennai dt 18.12.2000. Only on application legal heir certificate was given under Ex.D1. 11. Arguing for the plaintiff, the learned Counsel would submit that the husband of the plaintiff Dr. Vadhiraja Rao executed his Last Will and Testament on 4.3.1979 in a good and sound disposing state of mind in the presence of two attesting witnesses viz. P.W.1 Mohan Rao and one Thiru-navukkarasu; that the properties found in the testament are the self acquired properties of the testator; that one P.V. Srinivas is the son and the defendant is the daughter of the testator that the said Testament is marked as Ex.P1; that Dr. Vadiraja Rao died on 4.12.1986; that in order to prove the testament, the plaintiff has examined one of the attesting witnesses viz. Mr. Mohan Rao as P.W.1; and since the second attesting witness Thirunavukkarasu is no more, his son Mr. Vadiraja Rao died on 4.12.1986; that in order to prove the testament, the plaintiff has examined one of the attesting witnesses viz. Mr. Mohan Rao as P.W.1; and since the second attesting witness Thirunavukkarasu is no more, his son Mr. Muthukumar is examined as P.W.2 who has identified the signature of his father Mr. Thirunavukkarasu; that P.W.1 has categorically deposed as to the fact of due execution and proper attestation of the testament; that the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.3; that from the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs side, it would be clear that the testator was in a sou and disposing state of mind on the relevant time and date; that the defendants marriage was performed in a grand scale during the life time of the testator that she was given in marriage to one Mr. Raghavendra Rao of Bangalore, a well settled dentist and at the time of the marriage, she was given lot of gold jewellery weighing 60 soverigns, silver articles and various other things of value; that with the financial help of the Karnataka Bank, the property was improved and part of the loan amount was repaid every month; that since the plaintiff has life interest in the property left behind her husband, she has been living there a long with her son, who is the legatee of the property; that it is true that the testator executed Ex.P1 testament on 4.3.1979; that there was no occasion to probate the Will after the death of the testator as the only two persons interested in the immovable property had no disagreements; that it is true that there is a delay of 11 years in filing the petition; that that the plaintiff did not initiate proceedings for obtaining the probate in view of the cordial relationship continued to exist among the parties and subsequently since there was minor troubles created in the family by disputes among the family members, there arose a need for the plaintiff to initiate proceedings to get the probate and discharge their duties; that the testator went to U.S.A. for a bye-pass surgery in 1979; that the discharge summary given by the said hospital is filed as Ex.P3 and he had celebrated his 60th birthday and regarding that function he has made a mention in Ex.P4 diary that photo album is filed as Ex.P6 series; that the testator was driving the car till his life time and the driving licence is filed as Ex.P8; that the diaries of the testator for the year 1980 and 1981 are filed as Exs.P9 and P10; that the executor who has been given a life estate did not have any knowledge about the execution of the Will and the Will has all along been in the custody of their auditor one Gopalakrishna Rao, who after the life time of the testator handed over Ex.P1 testament to the plaintiff, when the son of the testator and the defendant were present; that a perusal of the documents filed by the defendants side and in particular the correspondence between the defendant and one Mr. Sampath a family friend would reveal that the defendant had a clear knowledge about the execution of the Will by the testator and despite the same she has now putforth her false defence and hence as required by law, the plaintiff has proved the due execution, and attestation of Ex.P1 Will and hence probate has got to be granted in favour of the plaintiff. 12. 12. Countering to every one of the contentions of the plaintiffs side, the learned Counsel for the contesting defendant would urge that the execution or the testator of Ex.P1 testament has not been proved as required by law; that a careful scrutiny of the evidence would clearly indicate that it is a concocted and fabricated document; that admittedly the defendant is a daughter of the testator; that there was no valid or acceptable reason for the testator to exclude his only daughter, the defendant herein; that according to the plaintiff, Ex.P1 Will was executed by the testator on 4.3.1979, but this O.P. seeking for probate has been filed in the year 1997; after a lapse of 11 years that as per 0.25, R. 9 of Original Side Rules, the petition seeking for probate should be filed within 3 years from the date of the death of the testator, which has not been done in the present case and the plaintiff has not brought forth any convincing or acceptable explanation to condone the delay in filing the application after 11 years; that the contention of the plaintiff that there was no occasion to probate the Will after the death of the testator as persons interested in the immovable property had no disagreements and since minor troubles were created in the family by disputes among the family members, the plaintiff was to initiate the proceedings for obtaining the probate cannot be accepted as a valid reason for the delay caused; that the plaintiff as P.W.3 has categorically admitted that her daughter began to quarrel with her in the year 1989 itself; that taking into consideration of the fact that from the time onwards 7 years have elapsed from 1989, there is no proper and acceptable explanation coming forth from the plaintiffs side and hence in view of the said unreasonable delay in filing the petition for grant of probate within the time, the petition has got to be dismissed; that it could also be seen that the same was not filed within the time because Vadhiraja Rao never executed any Will; that there are so many suspicious circumstances which would indicate that Vadhiraja Rao could not have executed a Will as found under Ex.P1; that till the life time of Vadhiraja Rao he was under the, active care and custody of the plaintiff and he has also suffered a prolonged serious heart ailment and under the said circumstances, Ex.P1 will was certainly a got up document; that the recitals found in the alleged Will would clearly show that they have been introduced in order to deny the rightful share of the defendant; that she was only 14 years old and studying; that the Will was alleged to have been made in the year 1979 when her marriage was not even in contemplation and thus the denial of the rightful share of the defendant is not correct; and hence the Will on the said ground could not have been made by anybody including the late Vadihiraja Rao; that it is a pertinent to note that the house property was the only one residential portion when the alleged Will was said to have been executed and also in 1986 Vadhiraja Rao died and hence the property which could be considered to be the subject matter of the alleged Will could at the best be the residential house property and not the entire property in dispute, since it was developed after his death; that after the life time of Dr. Vadhiraja Rao the defendant was also shown as one of his heirs and successors under Ex.D1 and accordingly the official municipal records were changed and thus from 1986 onwards till date, the defendant is one of the co-sharers of the property having the right and interest in the entire property so far as her share is concerned; that subsequently the plaintiff, her son and the defendant who are the legal heirs and successors of Vadhiraja Rao with a view to develop the property approached the Karnataka Bank for a loan’ that the same was sanctioned jointly to all the three and from the loan availed, a fresh commercial portion of the property has been constructed and developed by all the three and the afores aid bank has been paying the proportionate rent to all the three; that the defendant has all along been paid Rs. 5,000/- per month viz.1/3rd share of the rent until the loan was repaid and thereafter she has been paid Rs. 5,000/- per month viz.1/3rd share of the rent until the loan was repaid and thereafter she has been paid Rs. 6,400/- per month being her 1/3rd share and now the Bank is paying the defendant the proportionate rent which was admitted to be stalled by the plaintiff by filing an interlocutory application for injunction; that besides the Bank, the other portion of the commercially developed building has been let out to another tenant; that while the loan was sanctioned, the defendant was a party to the mortgage transaction with the Karnataka Bank; that for further sanction of the loan in 1989 the defendant has been one of the joint applicants and on her signature the Bank sanctioned the loan; that the plaintiff, her son and the defendant have discharged the loan borrowed from the Bank by adjusting the monthly rent payable by the Bank; that if Vadhiraja Rao executed the Will and it was in the pos session of the plaintiff all along, she would not have treated the defendant as one of the successors of Vadhiraja Rao and all the above Will clearly indicate that the Will filed by the plaintiffs side is not a genuine one, but a concoted document in order to grab the lawful share of the defendant’ that the contention of the plaintiffs side that at the time of the marriage of the plaintiffs side that at the time of the marriage of the defendant, lot of gold jewellery and silver wares were given and hence there was a proper reason for Vadhiraja Rao to exclude his daughter should not be accepted since Dr Vadhiraja Rao spent reasonable amount for the marriage of the defendant as any respectable father would do; that the performance of the marriage of the defendant should not be a reason for denial of her rightful share to the properties; that a reading of the alleged Will would reveal that no reason is adduced to disinherit or exclude the defendant; that the plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.3, but she has stated that she had no knowledge about the Will and it was in the custody of Gopalakrishna Rao, who hander over to her one week after the death of her husband; that P.W.1 examined as attesting witness has stated that he did not know as to the preparation and typing of the Will; that it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff though filed the diaries maintained by Vadhiraja Rao for the year 1980 and 1981 under Exs.P9 and P10 has not chosen to file the diary for the year 1979 maintained by Vadhiraja Rao has been purposefully withheld and not filed into the Court because if the said diary was filed into the Court it would reveal that Vadhiraja Rao has not made any mention about the Will on the relevant date and hence he has not executed the alleged Will as contended by the plaintiff; that though it is contended by the plaintiffs side that the alleged Will under Ex.P1 was in the custody of Mr. Gopalakrishna Rao, he has not been examined by the plaintiffs side; that the son of the plaintiff has also not been examined and thus there are so many suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff has not dispelled any one of them and the execution or attestation of Ex.P1 Will has not been properly proved and in the absence of the sufficient and acceptable proof the Court has to necessarily reject the request of the plaintiff and the suit has got to be dismissed. 13. The plaintiff has come forward with the request to probate a Will dated 4.3.1979 alleging that it was duly executed by her husband Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao and it was his Last Will and Testament. The suit is contested by the defendant on the grounds that Ex.P1 Will is a forged and concocted document and there are so many suspicious circumstances attendant on the execution and attestation of the Will and hence the request of the plaintiff has got to be rejected. 14. The facts admitted as seen from the pleadings and the evidence are that Vadhiraja Rao was a practising Doctor since 1944; that the plaintiff is his wife and the said couple got one son by name Srinivas and Mrs. Shubha Rao, the defendant herein; that out of his income he purchased an immovable property situated in door No. 168, Avvai Shanmugam Road, Madras - 86; that both the son and daughter were educated by him; that the defendant was given in marriage in 1983 to Mr. Raghavendra Rao, a practising dentist at Bangalore; that the marriage of the defendant took place at Rajeswari Kalyana Mahal and at the time of marriage, the defendant was given jewels and silver wares befitting the status of both the family; that Vadhiraja Rao suffering from heart ailment had a heart surgery in U.S.A. in the year 1979 and he continued his practice till his death in 1986 except for a brief interval before his death; that subsequent to his life time, the original property left by Vadhiraja Rao was developed into a commercial complex by the plaiaintiff, her son and her daughter, the defendant herein by obtaining loan from Karnataka Bank and except a portion where the plaintiff and her son are residing, all other portions were let out to the tenants. 15. 15. In order to prove that Vadhiraja Rao in a sound and disposing state of mind executed Ex.P1 Will on 4.3.1979, the plaintiff has examined one of the attesting witnesses viz. P.W.1 Mr. Mohan Rao and P.W.2 Mr. Muthukumar, son of the other attesting witnesses Mr. Thirunavukkarasu. A perusal of Ex.P1 would indicate that the said testament is attested by only two witnessess viz. P.W.1 Mr. Mohan Rao and Mr. Thirunavukkarasu. The fact that one of the attesting witnesses Mr. Thirunavukkarasu is no more is not disputed by the defendants side and thus the only attesting witness alive is Mr. Mohan Rao examined as P.W.1. PW.1 admittedly a good and close friend of Dr. Vadhiraja Rao for a long time and who is acquainted with all the members of the family has deposed that he knew Mr. Vadhiraja Rao for more than 35 years; that Ex.P1 is the Will executed by Mr. Vadhiraja Rao; that the document contained the signature of the testator; that he has also attested the document along withone Mr. Thirunavukkarasu; that Ex.P1 contained his signature and the signature of the others; that the Will was executed in his residence and he saw while Vadhiraja Rao signing the Will and himself and Mr. Thirunavaukkarasu also saw Vadhiraja Rao signing the document; that Dr. Vadhiraja Rao also had seen while himself and the other attestors signing the document; that Vadhiraja Rao was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of Ex.Pl; that Dr. Vadhiraja Rao continued to practise even after the execution of the Will; that he kne w the members of the Family of Dr. Vadhiraja Rao; that the members had cordial relationship with the testator; that he is a chairman of “Mysore Fertilizers” and he is a President of “Sankar Nethralaya” before that he was in Andhra Chamber, Hindustan Chambar, Indo American Chamber and All India Manufacturers Organisation, which fact is not disputed by the defendant. Thus it could be well seen that a person like P.W.1 Mr. Mohan Rao who could commend respect in Society has come forward to depose as stated above. In the absence of the strong reason or circumstance, his evidence has got to be relied. The defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstances why he should give evidence in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant. Mohan Rao who could commend respect in Society has come forward to depose as stated above. In the absence of the strong reason or circumstance, his evidence has got to be relied. The defendant is unable to show any reason or circumstances why he should give evidence in favour of the plaintiff or against the defendant. The Court is of the view that his evidence is trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. 16. The plaintiff has examined P.W.2 Mr. Muthukumar son of the other attesting witness Mr. Thirunavukkarasu, who has identified the signature of his father in Ex.P1 testament. He has further added that the address and the other particulars of his father under Ex.P1 were in the handwriting of his father and the testator Dr. Vadhiraja Rao was their family physician. While asked about these attesting witnesses, the defendant has categorically admitted that she knew both these attesting witnesses, the defendant has categorically admitted that she knew both these attesting witnesses and they were friends of her father Vaihiraja Rao. According to P.W.3 wife of the testator till one week prior to his death, the testator was practising and he was in a sound and disposing state of mind and out of his own free will he executed the Will under Ex.P1. P.W.1 has also deposed that Vadhiraja Rao the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind at the time of Ex.P1. It is significant to note that the contesting defendant has stated that her father was suffering from heart ailment from 1974 onwards and he has been having that problem frequently; that he was hospitalised on and off; that he continued to practice seven after he had the heart ailment; that in 1979, her father was mentally stable; that he was not mentally upset and his mental condition was good and he had only heart ailment. Nowhere she has stated in her evidence that her father lost his mental faculties either, or was not in a sound and disposing state of mind, but on the contrary she would say that in 1979 her father was mentally stable and his mental condition was also good. Therefore, this would clearly show that during the relevant time of execution of Ex.P1 testament Vadhiraja Rao was in a good and sound disposing state of mind, as contended by the plaintiffs side. 17. Therefore, this would clearly show that during the relevant time of execution of Ex.P1 testament Vadhiraja Rao was in a good and sound disposing state of mind, as contended by the plaintiffs side. 17. After careful scrutiny of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, the following would emerge pointing to the truth and genuineness of the Will. The testator who was practising in medicine from the year 1944, has out of his income purchased the only one immovable property, the subject matter of Ex.P1 Will, in respect of which he has made the bequest. The wife of the testator viz. the plaintiff herein has been all along living with him. According to the defendant, Vadhiraja Rao has been under the direct care of her mother, viz. the plaintiff herein. Ex.D1 legal heirship certificate obtained by the plaintiff contained the name of the defendant. It is an admitted position that the defendant was only 14 years old when Ex.P1 came into existence and hence there was no occasion for the testator to inform to the defendant about the execution of the Will. A perusal of the testament would show that he has given only a life estate in the only immovable property to his wife, the plaintiff herein while he has given the vested reminder to his son Srinivas. It is very pertinent to note that in so far as the movable properties of the testator are concerned, he has stated that he has bequeathed absolutely all the cash securities, shares, chose-in-action money, whether at the Bank or elsewhere, insurance premia, motor car and all other movables to the plaintiff, his son Srinivas and the only daughter Subha the defendant herein to be shared equally. As stated above, the defedant was only 14 years old at the time of execution of Ex.P1 testament. The testator has also given directions to his wife that she has to meet the educational needs and up-bringing of the children and for meeting the marriage expenses of his daughter also. Whileso, it cannot be stated that the testator has not made sufficient and proper provision for the defendant either, or has excluded or disinherited her. It remains to be stated that the marriage of the defendant has taken place during the life time of Vadhiraja Rao, the testator. Whileso, it cannot be stated that the testator has not made sufficient and proper provision for the defendant either, or has excluded or disinherited her. It remains to be stated that the marriage of the defendant has taken place during the life time of Vadhiraja Rao, the testator. The daughter has admitted that her marriage was conducted in AVM Raja Rajeswari Kalyana Mandapam, Madras and she was given the required bride gifts i.e. gold jewels, silver vessels and other articles during her marriage, but she did not know the exact quantity of them. The defendant was given in marriage to Mr. Ragavendra Rao, a Dentist in Bangalore, and even after marriage, she was staying with her parents and completed her studies in Madras. Thus it would be clear that Vadhiraja Rao should have spent considerable amount for the marriage of the defendant, in order to see her well settled in life. The contention of the plaintiffs side that sufficient funds were spent and all care was taken to see that she was well settled in her life is not disputed by the defendant. While taking into consideration that the only immovable property what was acquired by Vadhiraja Rao out of his income was the property found in the testament in respect of which life estate is created in favour of his wife and the vested reminder is given to his son and all the movables were to be divided equally by all the three, the Court is able to see that there is nothing unnatuaral or improper disposition of properties by Vadhiraja Rao. 18. Ex.P1 testament was executed on 4.3.1979. According to P.W.3 Ex.P1 was handed over by Mr. Sampath on 20.12.1986, a week after the death of her husband. Admittedly, Vadhiraja Rao suffering from heart ailment went to U.S.A. for a bye-pass surgery in the year 1979. Hence there was a necessity and compelling reason for Vadhiraja Rao to make some arrangement in respect of his property which resulted in the execution of Ex.P1 Will on 4.3.1979. A cover attached to Ex.P1 will contains the following writing: “Last Will of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao. To be opened in the event of his death”. A comparison of this writing of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao with the signatures found in Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that the said writing was that of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao. A cover attached to Ex.P1 will contains the following writing: “Last Will of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao. To be opened in the event of his death”. A comparison of this writing of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao with the signatures found in Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that the said writing was that of Dr. P. Vadhiraja Rao. This would clearly indicate that Vadhiraja Rao who executed Ex.P1 testament has put the same in the cover with the direction that it should be opened after his death and would speak of the truth and genuineness of the will. The defendant has fairly admitted her correspondence with one Mr. Sampath, though she has answered that she could not identify the signature of B.T. Sampath on the cover enclosed with Ex.P1 Will. In reply to a letter written by Mr. Sampath on 29.3.94, the defendant has written Ex.D32 letter on 6.4.94. The said letter contains as follows: “I am of the positive impression that Appa on his return from abroad made another Will bequeathing 1/3 rd of the front portion of the building to me. That will is not forthcoming. Let it be”. From the above, it could be well seen that Mr. Vadhiraja Rao has executed a Will before he went to abroad, which fact was well within the knowledge of the defendant and she has spoken about another Will bequeathing 1/3rd of the front portion of the building in her favour. Admittedly the said letter marked as Ex.D32 was written by the defendant and she had no other explanation to offer. Hence it could be so easily inferred from the above lines found in Ex.D32 letter that she had clear knowledge about the existence of the bequest made by her father. Admittedly Vadhiraja Rao died on 4.12.1986 after 7 years from the time of execution of Ex.P1 Will and he was mentally alright during his life time. But he has not taken any steps to cancel or revoke Ex.P2 testament in the course of 7 long years, which would be one of the strongest circumstances pointing to the truth and genuineness of Ex.P1 Will. 19. The first and the foremost objection raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. But he has not taken any steps to cancel or revoke Ex.P2 testament in the course of 7 long years, which would be one of the strongest circumstances pointing to the truth and genuineness of Ex.P1 Will. 19. The first and the foremost objection raised by the learned Counsel for the defendant Mr. V.S. Subramaniam for issuing the probate is that as per Order 25 Rule 9 of Original Side Rules in any case where probate or letters of administration is for the first time applied for after the lapse of three years from the death of the deceased, the reason for the delay shall be explained in the petition, but in the instant case, the testator Vadhiraja Rao died on 4.12.1986 and the original petition for the issue of probate was filed only in 1997 after a long gap of 11 years which is inordinate and inexcusable; that the plaintiff has not explained the same by acceptable and sufficient reasons and on that ground the suit has got to be rejected. After careful consideration of the available evidence and facts and circumstances in this case, the Court is unable to agree with the defendant stating the delay has not been explained. It is true that Vadhiraja Rao who executed Ex.P1 testament in the year 1979 died in the year 1986. It is also true that the original petition seeking for probate was filed only in 1997, and as per Or 25, R. 9 of original side Rules, the petition should have been filed within three years i.e. within 3.12.1989 and thus in filing the application in 1997, there was a delay of 8 years. The plaintiff has specifically pleaded that there was no occasion to probate the Will, after the death of the testator, as the only two persons interested in the immovable property had no disagreements; that in the recent time a minor trouble have been created in the family by disputes among the family members and hence the plaintiff herself as executor wants to get probate and discharge her duties, and hence there was delay in filing the above petition after some years after the death of the testator. The plaintiff has stated that she did not take steps to probate the Will immediately because it was much expensive and since she has one daughter and one son there might not be any problem even if the Will was not probated and since the daughter began to give some trouble, she was forced to probate the Will. In the instant case, the plaintiff seeking the probate is the mother and the contesting defendant is the daughter. The defendant was given in marriage in the year 1983 during the life time of Vadhiraja Rao. The defendant has admitted that even after her marriage she continued her studies at Madras and she was with her parents. In 1989 when steps were taken to develop the front portion of the suit property, the defendant joined with her mother and brother in making an application and obtaining the loan from Karnataka Bank, by mortgaging the property, Ex.D3 is a copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds wherein the defendant has also signed, as one of the guarantors. She has also joined with her mother and brother seeking for sanction of the building plan and for approval. After the construction of the commercial complex, the defendant along with her mother and brother entered into a lease agreement with the tenants as found under Ex.D4; It is also admitted that the defendant executed a power of attorney in favour her mother, the plaintiff herein which was subsequently cancelled. A perusal of Ex.D4, a copy of the lease agreement and Ex.D19 draft lease agreement would clearly reveal that she along with her mother and brother entered into a lease agreement with the Karnataka Bank Limited in respect of the property for a period of five years. All the above would clearly reveal that after the death of Vadhiraja Rao in 1986, the defendant continued to maintain a cordial relationship with her mother and brother. Though there was some difference of opinion among the plaintiff and the defendant, it did not come to surface till the defendant asked the Karnataka Bank officials to give her the 1/3 rd share in the rental directly and made a demand for the return of the original title deeds deposited with the Bank at the time of creation of the mortgage. Under such circumstance, the plaintiff who was under the strong belief that she could not get any problem from her only daughter, had no option than to initiate the proceedings for obtaining the probate, when the defendant began to quarrel and create trouble. Thus taking into consideration, the cordial relationship, which continued to exist between the parties, the plaintiff did not feel any necessity to seek for probate and the plaintiff who could not bear the trouble created by her daughter was forced to initiate proceedings in the year 1997. In the instant case the plaintiff has specifically pleaded and has given evidence regarding the same. The Court is of the view that the explanation tendered by the plaintiff as above with regard to the delay in filing the petition for probate is acceptable and convincing. 20. It is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff did not initiate any proceedings for probate earlier; that Vadhiraja Rao did not execute a Will and Ex.P1 document was a forged and concocted one which came into existence just prior to the filing of the O.P. This contention cannot be countenanced for more reasons than one. The plaintiff has examined one of the attesting witnesses as P.W.1 whose evidence is trustworthy and reliable. As pointed out above, the defendant herself has indirectly admittedly in Ex.D32 letter the existence of the Will executed by Vadhiraja Rao before he left for abroad. The Court has also narrated the different circumstances pointing to the truth and genuineness of the document. Advancing his arguments further, the learned Counsel for the counsel for the defendant relying on number of documents filed by the defendants side would submit that the plaintiff has treated the defendant as co-owner of the property all along and had Vadhiraja Rao executed a Will as found under Ex.P1, the plaintiff could have well initiated the proceedings for obtaining, the probate earlier and could not have shared the rental income with the defendant herein. It is not in controversy that after the life time of Vadhiraja Rao the front portion of the suit property was converted into a commercial complex, after obtaining sanction and approval from the Corporation of Madras, wherein the defendant has also signed along with her mother and brother as owner. It is not in controversy that after the life time of Vadhiraja Rao the front portion of the suit property was converted into a commercial complex, after obtaining sanction and approval from the Corporation of Madras, wherein the defendant has also signed along with her mother and brother as owner. The defendant along with others applied for loan from the Karnataka Bank by deposit of title deeds, as security for the loan, as found under Ex.D3. After construction of the commercial complex it was leased out to different tenants including the Karnataka Bank. In the original lease deed and the renewal of lease deeds also the defendant has also joined with her mother, the plaintiff herein and her son as co-owner of the property. It is also true that Mr. P.V. Srinivas sent under Exs.D9 and D10 letters Rs. 5,000/- each viz. the 1/3rd share in the rental income. It is also true that Bank of Karnataka was adjusting the rental amount towards the loan, and was paying the balance of rent proportionately. Ex.D6 would show that the Bank has given the defendant her 1/3 rd share in the rent. It is pertinent to note that despite objections raised by the plaintiff, the Bank continued to pay her share of rent. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant pointed out that all the above would clearly reveal that the defendant was treated as the joint owner of the property by the plaintiff and her son, and indicate that Ex.P1 document is not a genuine ore, but a fabricated and concocted one to grab the defendants share in the suit property. As already stated the execution and existence of the Will was well within the knowledge of the defendant. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and the correspondence between the defendant and one Mr. Sampath would clearly reveal that a compromise was attempted at, despite the existence of the Will. It has to be pointed out at this juncture that the subsequent conduct of the parties and the treatment of the daughter viz. the defendant herein from the hands of the mother, the plaintiff herein will not in any way affect the truth and genuineness of the Will. It has to be pointed out at this juncture that the subsequent conduct of the parties and the treatment of the daughter viz. the defendant herein from the hands of the mother, the plaintiff herein will not in any way affect the truth and genuineness of the Will. In the instant case, the plaintiff has purforth acceptable, convincing and reliable evidence to prove the execution of the Will by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind and it was duly attested by two witnesses as required by law. 21. Added further the learned Counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has categorically admitted by her own conduct earlier in recognising the defendant as the legal heir succeeding to the property of her father simultaneously along with the plaintiff and her brother and hence the plaintiff and her son are estopped from going back upon the said admission and the same would also belie the contention of the plaintiff as to the execution of any Will by Vadhiraja Rao. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would urge that even assuming that the plaintiff has recognised her daughter as a co-owner of the property, it will not take away the truth or the validity of the Will and apart from that the aged plaintiff in order to avoid embarasment by initiating proceedings in a Court of law and to maintain peace, she has been treating the defendant so and when the intolerable situation arose, the plaintiff was constrained to file the proceedings for probate. The said contention of the defendants side cannot be countenanced in view of the necessary and sufficient proof available, as to the execution and attestation of the testament. The Court has to necessarily look into and give effect to the intention of the testator at the time of the execution of the Will and not the subsequent conduct of the parties claiming benefit under it. When there is acceptable and sufficient evidence pointing to the truth and genuineness of the Will, as in this case the subsequent treatment of the property of the testator by the parties or the subsequent conduct of the parties do not assume any importance or significance. When there is acceptable and sufficient evidence pointing to the truth and genuineness of the Will, as in this case the subsequent treatment of the property of the testator by the parties or the subsequent conduct of the parties do not assume any importance or significance. If the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendant has to be accepted, it would be acting against the very intention of the testator who made the bequest in respect of his properties. 22. Relying on a decision reported in AIR 1939 Calcutta 535 ( Harimari Babi and another v. Anath Rao Roy Choudhry ), the learned Counsel for the defendant would argue that in the instant case there was a long and inordinate delay of eight years, but the explanation adduced by the plaintiff is of unsatisfactory nature and hence the request of the plaintiff has got to be denied. In the said case, it has been held thus; “The burden of proving a Will in solemn form is cast upon the propounders. Where an unregistered will is sought to be propounded after the lapse of more than 20 years it is required that all manner of doubt and suspicion which are likely to arise should be removed by them. But where the evidence adduced is of unsatisfactory nature and the discrepancies therein excite the suspicion of a Probate Court, no probate can be granted unless such suspicion is removed”. In answer to the above submission, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied on a decision of this Court reported in 1999 T.L.N.J. 311 (S. Kannan v. Vascmtha). The Court is of the view that the decision of this Court relied on by the plaintiff is applicable to the present facts of the case, where the Court had an occasion to consider the delay of 14 years. On a perusal of the said decision, the Court is able to see that the facts in the reported case are similar to the facts in the present case. Apart from that the Court has also pointed out that the explanation putforth by the propounder is acceptable and convincing. 23. On a perusal of the said decision, the Court is able to see that the facts in the reported case are similar to the facts in the present case. Apart from that the Court has also pointed out that the explanation putforth by the propounder is acceptable and convincing. 23. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant relied on the following decisions: (i) In the decision reported in AIR 1959 Supreme Court 443 ( H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others ), it is held thus; “The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, reference must inevitably be made to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under S. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 63 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in the Court of law. Similarly Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Thus the question as to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of prudent mind in such matters.” (ii) the Apex Court has held in the decision reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 74 Smt. Jaswani Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others ), as follows: “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.” (iii) In AIR 1990 Supreme Court 396 ( Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Choit and others), the Apex Court has held thus; “A Will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the document itself. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the document itself. It would be also open to the court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party.” (iv) In the decision reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2861, ( Gurdial Kaur and others v. Kariar Kaur and others ) it is held as follows: “The law is well stated that the conscience of the will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, but it should also be found that the said will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the proponder of the will to dispel suspicious circumstance.” 24. From a perusal of the above decisions relied on by the defendant, it would be clear that the party propounding the will must prove the document and in deciding how it is to be proved reference must be made to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect the proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. The true test would be whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court. A will is one of the most solemn document known to law and hence it is essential that the trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the will. The factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely on the evidence produced by the propounder. A will is one of the most solemn document known to law and hence it is essential that the trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the will. The factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely on the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of the witnesses and disengage the truth from the falsehood the Court is not confined only to the testimony and demeanor. It would be open to the Court to consider the surrounding circumstances brought out in evidence as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court is of the view that after applying all these tests enunciated by the Apex Court in the foregoing decisions, the plaintiff has proved the truth and genuineness of Ex.P1 testament by satisfactory and trustworthy testimony. In the instant case the propounder has proved the factum of execution and validity of the will by adducing sufficient evidence. The circumstances brought out in the evidence and appeared from the nature and contents of the testament and apart from the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case would establish the genuineness and authenticity of the testament. The Court has to necessarily state that the evidence led by the propounder of the testament is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that Ex.P1 was duly executed by the testator. Though it is contended by the defendants side that there are suspicious circumstances attendant on the execution of the will, the Court is of the view that the execution and attestation of the testament has been duly proved by sufficient evidence of the propounder and it is free from any suspicious circumstance. The Apex Court in the case reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 133 (Indu Bala Bose and others v. Manindra Chandra Bose and another) held thus: “The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus;. Where however there are suspicious circum stances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of do testators mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testators mind was not free. In such a case the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. Any and every circumstance is not a ‘suspicious’ circumstance. A circumstance would be ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person.” Applying the above test given in the aforesaid decision the Court has to necessarily hold that in the instant case there are no suspicious circumstances at all as narrated above. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the will by proving the testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law and apart from that there are no suspicious circumstances. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the will by proving the testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law and apart from that there are no suspicious circumstances. Thus for the reasons stated and discussions made above, it has to be held that the plaintiff has proved that Ex.P1 will was executed by Vadhiraja Rao in a good and sound disposing state of mind and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of probate. All the above issues are answered accordingly; 25. In the result, this suit is decreed, but no order as to the costs. Issue probate in favour of the plaintiff.