JUDGMENT : S. L. JAIN, J. By this appeal under section 299 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, referred to as 1925 Act' for short), the appellant seeks to challenge the correctness, validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 17-4-1998 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Probate Case No. 8/93 on the application field by Phool Singh, the respondent herein, inter alia, submitting that the order of the Trial Court is incorrect and misleading. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the present respondent, the propounder of the will Phool Singh presented an application for grant of probate on a will dated 12-4-1959 executed by Smt. Rambai wife of Koha Singh alleging that the property which is the subject-matter of will, originally belonged to Laxman Singh. Laxman Singh had five sons, namely, Hiralal, Tilak Singh, Raghunandan Lal, Chandan Singh and Ganpat Singh. The property of Laxman Singh was divided by meets and bounds amongst his sons as per registered partition deed dated 25-4-1942. The property received by Hiralal in partition was sold by him to Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Tilak Singh who was bachelor sold the property which fell in his share, to Munshi Raghunandan Lal vide sale deed dated 4-2-1943. Purchaser Raghunandan Lal sold the same property to Lal Kunwar Bai who, as per Will dated 5-12-1972, bequeathed it to the respondent herein. Ganpat Singh bequeathed the property which came to his share to Rambai as per Will dated 27-5-1956. After the death of Ganpat Singh, Rambai became the owner of the property of Ganpat Singh. Chandrabhan Singh tried to capture the property of Rambai, but he did not succeed. Chandan Singh dragged Rambai in the litigation. Chandan Singh also tried to submit a fake document of compromise by using his wife Nirmala as an imposter for Rambai. 3. Rambai lived with her husband till his death. Thereafter, she started living with the applicant, who is her brother. Applicant was in government service. Rambai lived with him at all the place where he was transferred from time to time. The applicant retired from service as Commandant, Home Guards. After his retirement, Rambai lived with him at H. No. 270, West Ghamapur, Jabalpur. 4. Rambai executed a registered will in favour of the applicant on 12-4-1989 and bequeathed the suit property in his favour. Last rites of Rambai were performed by the applicant. The applicant retired from service as Commandant, Home Guards. After his retirement, Rambai lived with him at H. No. 270, West Ghamapur, Jabalpur. 4. Rambai executed a registered will in favour of the applicant on 12-4-1989 and bequeathed the suit property in his favour. Last rites of Rambai were performed by the applicant. Applicant moved an application for issuing the Probate Certificate in his favour. 5. Satish Singh, the appellant herein, who is son of Chandra Bhan Singh and grand son of Chandan Singh, combated the claim of respondent herein alloging that the property of Laxman Singh was inherited jointly according to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law by a coparcenary body comprising his sons Ganpat Singh, Hiralal Singh, Chandan Singh and Tilak Singh and his grand son Chandra Bhan Singh. There was no partition of the aforesaid property on 2-5-1942. It was merely a family settlement to manage the vast Property. Chandra Bhan Singh did not sign the document as it was merely a settlement to manage the property. A portion of the property was sold with the consent of the members of coparcenary body through Hiralal Singh and the consideration amount formed part of joint family fund. It was not individual property of Hiralal Singh. 6. It is also alleged that Tilak Singh secretly sold a portion of joint Hindu family property to Raghunandan Lal and jagdish Narayan in 1943. This sale was objected by all the members of aforesaid body and the purchasers were not allowed to take possession of the sold property with the result that Raghunandan Lal and Jagdish resold the property which was purchased by the then manager Ganpat Singh in 1947 for a consideration from joint family fund in the name of his mistress Lal Kumari Bai. It was a Benami transaction. Consequently, there arose a dispute. Ganpat Singh consoled other coparceners by telling them that in the aforesaid sale deed the fact of payment of money by him has been recorded. Lal Kumari had no right in the property, therefore, the Will executed by her on 5-12-1972 cannot dispose of the property. It is further alleged that respondent is trying to grab the property. 7. The appellant herein also contended that the Will alleged to have been executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Rambai on 6-8-1956 is fabricated as Ganpat Singh died in the year 1955. It is further alleged that respondent is trying to grab the property. 7. The appellant herein also contended that the Will alleged to have been executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Rambai on 6-8-1956 is fabricated as Ganpat Singh died in the year 1955. Moreover, Ganpat Singh could not have bequeathed the property by will because his share in the property was undefined. It was also the case of appellant that after the death of Ganpat Singh, Chandra Bhan became the manager of the coparcenary as Hiralal Singh and Tilak Singh refused to become the managers. Chandra Bhan Singh died in 1970. Before that, Lal Singh and Tilak Singh also died. After the death of Chandan Singh Chandra Bhan Singh being only surviving coparcener became the owner of the whole property. Smt. Rambai being an issueless widow and daughter of Ganpat Singh was allowed to recover rent from the houses for her maintenance. As she was recovering rent, she paid taxes. The property did not belong to Smt. Rambai. 8. The appellant averred that the respondent herein is not a member of the family of Laxman Singh. He was brought as a poor boy from the village Sadaphal by Tilak Singh. He was brought up and maintained by the members of the family of Chandra Bhan Singh. With a view to grab the property of Laxman Singh, he wanted to keep Rambai under his clutches, therefore, kept Rambai with him. Rambai had no alienating right over the property. The will was executed under coercion and undue influence and hence void. Further under the influence of Phool Singh. Rambai revoked the previous will vide subsequent will dated 12-8-1992. Chandra Bhan went for the last rites for Rambai but the respondent turned him out forcibly. 9. The Court-below allowing the application of the respondent herein issued a probate of the property of Rambai in his favour. 10. Being aggrieved by the said order appellant Satish who was substituted as legal representative of deceased Chandra Bhan on his death, has filed this appeal. 11. We have heard Smt. Jayshree Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent; and perused the record of the lower Court carefully. 13. Per contra, Shri V. R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent, supported the order of the lower Court. 11. We have heard Smt. Jayshree Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri S. K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent; and perused the record of the lower Court carefully. 13. Per contra, Shri V. R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent, supported the order of the lower Court. According to him, the property in question belonged to Rambai and she, out of her free volition, executed the will in favour of respondent. 14. The question which arise for determination are : (1) Whether Rambai was the owner of the property in question? (2) Whether Rambai was capable of making the will? (3) Whether the will was obtained by fraud, coercion or importunity? (4) Whether the will has not been properly proved? Question No. (1) :- 15. Smt. Mukherjee, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that originally the property belonged to Laxman Singh. It was inherited jointly by Ganpat Singh, Hiralal Singh, Chandan Singh and Tilak Singh. There was no partition of the aforesaid property on 20-5-1942. It was merely a family settlement to manage the vast property. 16. When the case of the appellant is that the document in question was not a partition deed but merely a family settlement, it was for him to prove that document. Normally, such a document is supposed to be in possession the parties thereto and it was for the appellant to produce the original document. Appellant did not care to produce either original or secondary evidence thereof. Whereas, the respondent in all fairness called Record Keeper of Sub Registrar's Office to produce a copy of the partition deed available there. The Record Keeper produced the document Ex.P-7, (copy Ex.P-7-C). This document reveals that due to the quarrels it had become difficult for the brothers to live together, therefore, the partition of the family property took place and thereafter all the brothers became owners and came into the possession of the property falling to their respective shares. It was also specifically narrated in the document that none of the parties to partition would have any right over the property failing in the share of others. Thus, the recitals of Ex.P-7-C make it abundantly clear that it is a document effecting partition and not the document recording family settlement only. 17. It was also specifically narrated in the document that none of the parties to partition would have any right over the property failing in the share of others. Thus, the recitals of Ex.P-7-C make it abundantly clear that it is a document effecting partition and not the document recording family settlement only. 17. Even if it is accepted that the original document has not been proved and permission to lead secondary evidence was not sought and therefore Ex.P-7-C cannot be used in evidence, it was the obligation of the appellant to lead the evidence to establish that the document was not of partition and was only a family arrangement. In the absence of proof to that effect the only inference which can be drawn is that the document was of partition. 18. Further different successors of deceased Laxman Singh went on disposing of the properties or part thereof which came to their respective shares. Ex.P-7-C, original of which was produced at the time of evidence of Phool Singh Parihar, is the copy of sale deed by which Tilak Singh sold the property of his share to Raghunandan Lal and this Raghunandan Lal sold the same property to Smt. Lal Kumari as per the sale deed Ex.P-2 (original document returned to the witness). Ganpat Singh executed a registered will of his property in favour of his daughter Smt. Ram Bai. Thus, it is clear that the sons of Laxman Singh had been independently dealing with the property which came to their respective shares. This conduct indicates that the partition took place and the property was divided amongst sons of Laxman Singh finally on 25-4-1942. Document could have been conveniently produced by the appellant to contend that it is not a deed of partition but deed of family arrangement. Thus, best available evidence has been withheld by the appellant and it cannot be said that the document was not a deed of partition and was only a deed of family arrangement. After partition of the coparcenary property all the sons of Laxman Singh became the exclusive owners of the property which came to their share. 19. Ganpat Singh executed a registered will in favour of Ram Bai. B. S. Thakur, P.W.4 the Record Keeper of Sub Registrar's office, Jabalpur produced the certified copy of the will executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Ram Bai on 6-8-1956. 19. Ganpat Singh executed a registered will in favour of Ram Bai. B. S. Thakur, P.W.4 the Record Keeper of Sub Registrar's office, Jabalpur produced the certified copy of the will executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Ram Bai on 6-8-1956. Even if this copy is ignored in the absence of original, on the death of Ganpat Singh, the property devolved upon Ram Bai, being his daughter and only issue. Therefore, not only on the basis of will executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Ram Bai but also on account of succession, Ram Bai became the owner of the property in question. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Hindu Succession Act came into force in the year 1956 while Ganpat Singh died in the year 1955. According to her, the appellant has adduced overwhelming evidence to establish that Ganpat Singh died in the year 1955. She relied on the certificate Ex.D-4-C, issued by Sarpanch, Dhansingh. Under what authority Sarpanch had issued such certificate could not be shown. Further the year of issuing the certificate is not clearly legiable. It appears to have been issued in 1987. What was the occasion to issue such certificate in the year 1987 is not clear. Another certificate is issued by Kashidas Kotwar who has not been produced as a witness. Kotwar issued such certificate only on the basis of Fouti-Paidaish (Death & Birth) Register. This register has not been called in evidence which leads to adverse inference against the appellant. Ex.D-6-C is an invitation for participation in the thirteenth day ceremony wherein it has been mentioned that Ganpat Singh died on 14-5-1955. Such document can be prepared at any time. Ex.D-7-C is a letter written by Chandan Singh wherein it is stated that Ganpat Singh died on 14-5-1955. This document can also be prepared at any time. It does not bear the seal of the post office concerned. The envelope in which this letter was sent has not been produced. Such a document can also be prepared at any time. No evidence has been given to establish the genuineness of Ex. D-4, Ex. D-5, Ex. D-6 and Ex. D-7. 21. As against this, the endorsement of Registrary on the will executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Rambai is Ex.D-6-C, which is dated 6-8-1956. This establishes that on 6th August, 1956 Ganpat Singh was alive. No evidence has been given to establish the genuineness of Ex. D-4, Ex. D-5, Ex. D-6 and Ex. D-7. 21. As against this, the endorsement of Registrary on the will executed by Ganpat Singh in favour of Rambai is Ex.D-6-C, which is dated 6-8-1956. This establishes that on 6th August, 1956 Ganpat Singh was alive. It bears the signature of Ganpat Singh. The will being registered, the Court can raise a presumption, though rebuttable, that the registration being a solemn act, all the formalities required under the law are fulfilled. Since no evidence has been adduced in rebuttal, the Court can very well presume that the will was executed by Ganpat Singh and he must have been identified by the attesting witnesses. No evidence has been given to establish that the document is forged and it does not bear the signature of Ganpat Singh. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the appellant regarding the date of death of Ganpat Singh is not acceptable. Thus, Rambai was the owner of the property in question not only on the account of the will executed in her favour by her father Ganpat Singh, but also on the strength of inheritance. Her father Ganpat Singh died after 6-8-1956 after the commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short 1956 Act'). The Act is silent as to the date of its commencement, it shall be deemed to have been commenced from the date on which it receives the assent of president of India. Since 1956 Act is silent on the date of its commencement and since it received assent of President of India on June 17, 1956, it commenced from June 17,1956. Under section 8 of this Act the property of a male Hindu shall devolve firstly upon the heirs being the relatives specified in Clause-I of the Schedule. Daughter comes under Clause-I of the Schedule. Thus, the conclusion is inevitable that on the death of Ganpat Singh after coming into force 1956 Act Rambai inherited his property and on the date of execution of the will in favour of the respondent she was the owner of the property. Question Nos. 2 and 3 :- 22. It will be convenient to deal with both these questions together. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Rambai was sick, feeble and debiliated and was not capable of making independent judgment. Question Nos. 2 and 3 :- 22. It will be convenient to deal with both these questions together. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Rambai was sick, feeble and debiliated and was not capable of making independent judgment. It is for the propounder to prove testamentary capacity and dispel doubts about the genuineness of the will. 23. P.W.1 Phool Singh Parihar has stated in his cross examination that on the date of execution of the will Smt. Rambai was not sick. P.W.6 Dr. Subhash Arora who is also an attesting witness of the will Ex.P-16, has clearly stated that at the time of execution the will Rambai was physically and mentally fit. P.W.7 Adhrash Muni Trivedi, who is an Advocate and has drafted the will, has also stated that at the time of execution of the will Rambai was physically fit and mentally alert. 24. Even if a person is sick, feeble and debiliated, if he is able to entertain competent understanding as to general nature of the property, as to the estate of his family, as to nature of instrument he/she executes and as to provision which it contains, it is enough. There must be clear evidence that the illness of testator so affected as to make him/her unequal to the task of disposing of the property. The appellant has failed to give any evidence much less convincing evidence to establish that Rambai was not of sound mind at the time of executing the will. The registration bears an endorsement that the will was read over to the executant and was understood by her. This endorsement is also significant while judging the testamentary capacity of the testator. 25. It is also contended by Smt. Mukherjee that the will was the result of undue influence. According to her, it is for the party propounding the will to satisfy the Court's conscience but the respondent has failed to remove the suspicion as to the testator having made the will with free and disposing mind and her own volition. 26. No evidence is forthcoming to show that undue influence was in fact, exercised on the deceased. With regard to undue influence it is not sufficient that the propounder of will should have been in a position to exercise such influence or should have the opportunity of chance of practising it. 26. No evidence is forthcoming to show that undue influence was in fact, exercised on the deceased. With regard to undue influence it is not sufficient that the propounder of will should have been in a position to exercise such influence or should have the opportunity of chance of practising it. It is further necessary that it must be proved that such undue influence was in fact exercised on the testator by person who seeks to propound the will. No suspicion can be held to amenate from the fact that the testator was not properly educated woman, still the details of the property have been mentioned in the will. The will was drafted by an advocate who could have gathered the information regarding particulars of property from various documents. This alone cannot constitute a ground to hold the will invalid as its due execution has been proved. There is no other unexpected suspicious circumstance. In the facts of the case there was nothing unnatural with the testator bequeathing the entire property in favour of her bother with whom she lived for a very long time. 27. It is also submitted that at the time of execution of the will propounder was present and he was in a position to influence the testator and will cannot be said to be executed with a free mind. Mere physical presence of the propounder at the time of execution of the will is not such a circumstance as to cast doubt about disposing capacity of testator or to make us think that the disposition made under the will was not with a free mind or undue influence was brought to bear on the testator. Therefore, the conclusion of the Court-below that the testator was free and had a sound disposing mind while executing the will and she executed the same out of her own free volition is based on should footing and calls for no interference. Question No. (4) :- 28. The last contention raised by learned counsel for appellant is that the formalities required to be observed in execution and attestation of a will have not been complied with. Section 63 of 1925 Act requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator signing the will and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in presence of the testator. Section 63 of 1925 Act requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator signing the will and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in presence of the testator. From the evidence adduced by the respondent it is established that the will was duly attested. Attesting witnesses put their signatures on the will in the presence of the testator. All the attesting witnesses had seen the testator signing the will. 29. The Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the will was singed by the testator and it was attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testator singing the will and further each of them signed the will in presence of the testator. Therefore, contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the person propounding the will has not duly proved the execution and attestation of the will, cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we uphold the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge on this count also. 30. As a result of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the findings of the learned trial Judge are unassailable. We do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.