Judgment :- The appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.82/89 on the file of the District Court, Thalassery. The said O.P. was filed under Section 277 of the Indian Succession Act for probate of a will alleged to be executed by late Joseph.T.A.father of the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, who died on 4.3.1984 at Thottplackall Manipara. The first respondent is the wife of deceased Joseph and the 2nd respondent is the wife of late Mathai, one of the sons of late Joseph and respondents 3 to 5 are the children of Mathai. Sometime before the death of Jospeh, he executed a will bequeathing the petition schedule property to the petitioner. Before the will could be registered the appellant’s father died. Late Joseph had clearly stated that he had provided for his other children sufficiently and it is his intention to give the petition schedule property to the petitioner. The will was executed voluntarily and it is his free will and testament. So the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate in respect of the will. 2. Respondents 2 to 7 filed a joint counter statement. They denied the execution of the will by late Joseph. The will produced by the petitioner is a concocted document and not genuine. At the time of execution of the alleged will late Joseph was 85 years old. During the relevant time he was mentally and physically infirm and he was not of sound mind. Late Joseph was hospitalized for sometime and since his condition was found to be hopeless, he was removed from the hospital to his own house. At the time of the alleged will Late Joseph was critically ill and not in a position to understand anything. The petitioner is not entitled to get probate of the will and it is liable to be dismissed. 3. On the side of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, RW1 was examined. The court below dismissed the petition, against which this appeal is preferred. The petitioner filed the petition for grant of probate of the will alleged to be executed by his father on 4.3.1984. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives are now in the party array as additional appellants. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The petitioner filed the petition for grant of probate of the will alleged to be executed by his father on 4.3.1984. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and his legal representatives are now in the party array as additional appellants. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 and deceased Mathai are the children of late Joseph and the first respondent is their mother. Respondents 3 to 5 are children of late Mathai, one of the sons of late Joseph. The respondents denied the execution of the will by late Joseph. According to them on the date of alleged execution of the will late Joseph was 85 years old and he was mentally and physically infirm. He was hospitalized for some days and since his condition was found to be hopeless, he was removed from the hospital to his own house. The will was alleged to be executed only on 3.3.1984 whereas the late Joseph died on 4.3.1984. Late Joseph was residing with the 2nd respondent, RW1. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the will after the death of his father. It was kept in a box and as per the will, the late father has bequeathed the petition schedule property to the petitioner since others were sufficiently provided. 4. To prove the will, the petitioner relies on the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. P.W.2 is alleged to be an attesting witness to the document. The petitioner was not present at the time of execution of the will. As per the evidence of PW2, himself, the testator, an old lady, one Varkey and one A.K.G.Kurup were present at the time of execution of Ext.A2. Ext.A1 is death certificate issued by the executive Officer. Padiyur Kallaid Panchayat. It shows that T.J.Joseph died on 4.3.1984. The fact that deceased T.J.Joseph was hospitalized for some time and he was removed to his house since his condition was found to be hopeless is not seriously challenged in cross examination of RW1. The case of the respondents is that late Joseph was 85 years old at the time of his death. RW1 gave evidence that the testator was not having any sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the alleged execution. The case of the respondents is that late Joseph was 85 years old at the time of his death. RW1 gave evidence that the testator was not having any sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the alleged execution. In the normal course, it is quiet improbable to execute a will on the previous day of his death, especially when he was brought from the hospital that his condition was hopeless. So it is suspicious circumstances. 5. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act relates to the proof of the will. Under Section 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. Section 68 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. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act prescribes the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. 6. In dealing with the proof of wills, the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature to the document on his own free will. In the present case none of the ingredients is proved by PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, at the time of affixing signature by the testator witnesses were present. He did not say that the witness saw the putting of signature by the testator saw the putting up of signature by the attestors. So the evidence adduced by PW2 is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the will. It is significant to note that the testator died on the next day of the alleged execution of the will. The first respondent is the wife and respondents 6 and 7 are the children of deceased Joseph. So the evidence adduced by PW2 is not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the will. It is significant to note that the testator died on the next day of the alleged execution of the will. The first respondent is the wife and respondents 6 and 7 are the children of deceased Joseph. Under the will, no property was bequeathed to them by the testator. This is yet another suspicious circumstances. Even though the genuineness of the will is disputed by the respondents, the petitioner has not taken any steps to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature seen in Ext.A3 dated 7.1.1984. According to PW2, the testator was put his signature only in two places whereas in Ext.A2, the signatures are seen in four places. So it is clear circumstances shows that he is a hired witness. The evidence of PW3 shows that he was called by the testator by sending a messenger. But he has no acquaintance with him. A perusal of his evidence shows that he is not a trustworthy witness. Thus Ext.A2 will is not properly proved by the petitioner. There is no possibility of the execution of the will just on the previous day of the death of the testator especially when he was brought to the house since his condition was hopeless. The evidence of RW1 is reliable. The fact that he was residing with RW1 is not disputed. In such circumstances it is to be found that the petitioner has failed to prove the genuineness of the will. The court below has rightly appreciated the evidence and dismissed the petition. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with costs of the respondents.