JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:-The unsuccessful propounder of the Will and testament dated 15-11-1983 is in appeal before us. The learned testamentary Judge of this Court in respect of the subject Will held that the circumstances surrounding execution of the Will were so suspicious that it was impossible to believe that the Will was executed at the place and at the time and in the manner suggested by the plaintiff (appellant herein) and, accordingly, refused to grant the probate vide his judgment dated 28-11-1995. The said judgment is in challenge before us. 2. The appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the propounder) filed the testamentary petition No. 176/1986 in this Court for probate of the Will and testament dated 15-11-1983 of the deceased namely Umeshchandra Madhav Joshi (hereinafter to be referred to as the testator). Few facts are thus: The testator was admitted to the ICU of the Breach Candy hospital on 13-11-1983 in the evening. On 14-11-1983, he is said to have decided to execute the Will as well as the power of attorney. He tells the propounder to contact M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co., a law firm for this purpose. The propounder contacts Ramesh Shroff Co., Mr. K.M. Mahimkar, Solicitor working in the said law firm is assigned the work and the propounder takes him to the Breach Candy Hospital on 14-11-1987. The testator instructs Mr. Mahimkar to prepare the power of attorney in favour of the propounder and bring the said power of attorney for his signature the next day i.e. 15-11-1987. The testator also tells Mr. Mahimkar that his Will is also to be prepared on 15-11-1983. On 15-11-1983 also the propounder takes Mr. K.M. Mahimkar, Solicitor to the Breach Candy Hospital during the non-visiting hours. On 15-11-1983, the testator executes the Will in the ICU of the hospital. The Will is said to be executed by the testator after the execution of the power of attorney. The testator is discharged from the hospital on 21-11-1983 in the morning but leaves hospital only in the evening waiting for the propounder to come and take him home. He dies on 23-11-1983. He was about 76 years of age at the time of his death leaving behind his widow Tarabai, seven sons, namely, Pravin, Dr. Niranjan, Sudarshan, Vishnu, Jagdish, Arvind and Sunil and three daughters namely Poornima, Mridula and Sujata. He dies on 23-11-1983. He was about 76 years of age at the time of his death leaving behind his widow Tarabai, seven sons, namely, Pravin, Dr. Niranjan, Sudarshan, Vishnu, Jagdish, Arvind and Sunil and three daughters namely Poornima, Mridula and Sujata. The propounder is the sole beneficiary under the Will. The two daughters, namely, Mrudula and Sujata filed caveats and accordingly, the testamentary petition was converted into testamentary suit. We may notice here as well that all the sons of the testator and the two daughters Poornima and Mridula (one of the caveators) initially gave the consent. 3. The caveators set up the case that the testator was not having testamentary capacity to execute the Will; that he was old and the Will was allegedly executed when he was being hospitalised; that the death took place within eight days of the execution of the Will and that the only beneficiary of the Will was the propounder which was unnatural as the testator had left behind her widow, other sons, daughters and grand children and that right from the time the testator was admitted in the hospital and until he was brought home and died, the testator who was under the care of the propounder and he took undue advantage of his being Doctor son. The caveators disputed the genuineness of the signature of the testator on the Will. 4. At the trial of the suit, the propounder examined five witnesses, namely himself, Tarabai-the widow, Kishore M. Mahimkar-the Advocate scribe of the Will as well as also the attesting witness, Dr. Bhupendra Gandhi and Dr. Vijay Panikar. Various documents including the subject Will were produced. The caveators did not lead any oral evidence. 5. The learned Testamentary Judge, as noted above, held that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will were so suspicious that it was impossible to believe that the Will was executed at the place and at the time and in the manner suggested by the propounder and, consequently, dismissed the suit. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued the appeal at length. He criticised the judgment of the learned Testamentary Judge on diverse aspects. He contended that though the learned Judge framed 10 issues, he did not answer any of the issues specifically. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence on record sufficiently and satisfactorily explains the suspicious circumstances observed by the learned Judge. He criticised the judgment of the learned Testamentary Judge on diverse aspects. He contended that though the learned Judge framed 10 issues, he did not answer any of the issues specifically. According to the learned Counsel, the evidence on record sufficiently and satisfactorily explains the suspicious circumstances observed by the learned Judge. He would contend that the learned Judge erred in disbelieving all the witnesses and he failed to give weightage to the fact that the witnesses were deposing before the Court almost after 11 years of the events in question. He referred to the evidence of K.M. Mahimkar, Tarabai and Dr. Bhupendra Gandhi in support of his submission that the Will was duly executed by the testator at the time and place and in the manner stated by the propounder. He submitted that the Will was not unnatural as has been made out by the learned Testamentary Judge. He would submit that the deceased was an unusual person; he was spiritual by nature and believed in Hindu Philosophy; he was a practitioner of Yoga all his life and Yoga teacher; he had donated seven acres of land at Manor (Maharashtra) to a public charitable trust set up by him in 1978; the propounder was unmarried and he was made one of the trustees of the said public charitable trust by the testator; the propounder had donated four acres of his land to the said public charitable trust at his father instance; the trust was engaged in the activities of setting up a Yoga Bhavan and a hospital for Adivasis and a Dharmashala, all of which were under construction and, thus, the propounder was closely connected with the charitable activities of the testator. The learned Counsel submitted that the testator wished to ensure continuity in the ongoing projects of the trustee by bequeathing his properties to the propounder son. As regards the exclusion of the three daughters, the learned Counsel submitted that Sujata, the youngest daughter married outside the community and against the wishes of the family in the year 1978 and her relations with the family were cut off. The other daughter Mridula got married in the year 1978 and at the time of her marriage, she was given more than enough. The testator did not help out Mridula financially though she consistently complained about shortage of money and asked for financial help. The other daughter Mridula got married in the year 1978 and at the time of her marriage, she was given more than enough. The testator did not help out Mridula financially though she consistently complained about shortage of money and asked for financial help. The third daughter consented to the grant of probate to the propounder. The learned Counsel submitted that as regards the exclusion of sons, one of sons Sudarshan assisted the deceased in the conduct of the business of Ramtirth Brahmi Oil and the deceased desired that his gadi should pass on to a person who would continue to carry on his activities and the only member of the family associated with the testator in the conduct of his charitable activities was the propounder. The learned Counsel highlighted that all the brothers of the propounder gave consent through affidavits stating that they had no objection to the grant of the probate in favour of the propounder. As regards the exclusion of Tarabai, the learned Counsel submitted that the testator had in fact discussed with her that he would like to give the entire estate to her and when she declined to accept the estate, the bequest was made in favour of the propounder and, therefore, question of exclusion of Tarabai did not arise. All brothers of the propounder are gainfully employed or engaged in fathers business or other business and, thus, he submitted that the exclusion of the other heirs cannot be regarded as suspicious and in any event the said circumstance has been satisfactorily explained. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the testator was of sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will. He referred to the evidence and submitted that on 15-11-1983 that the testator was sitting on the hospital bed, was talking normally and intelligently and was able to recognise Mr. Mahimkar whom he had met about six years back. He referred to the evidence of Tarabai to demonstrate that she found her husbands condition completely alright and that the deceased used to talk and understand everything clearly. The learned Counsel submitted that the testator was admitted in the hospital for a respiratory problem only and not a cardiac related problem or Liposarcoma. He referred to the evidence of Tarabai to demonstrate that she found her husbands condition completely alright and that the deceased used to talk and understand everything clearly. The learned Counsel submitted that the testator was admitted in the hospital for a respiratory problem only and not a cardiac related problem or Liposarcoma. He would submit that the state of health of the testator must be seen in the light of the evidence on record and that would clearly show that the testator was of sound and disposing state of mind at the time of the execution of the Will. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Testamentary Judge erred in disbelieving the evidence of the Doctors. He also submitted that there was no justifiable reason to disbelieve the deposition of Mr. Mahimkar. He criticised the reliance placed by the learned Testamentary Judge on the medical certificate of Dr. Kharkar and Dr. Vora given in the year 1981 and 1982 and the statements made in affidavits used for the purpose of some other litigation. The learned Counsel contended that the reliance placed by the respondents on the affidavit of Sudarshan dated 17-12-1982 in Appeal No. 769 of 1987 filed before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai and the application dated 7-12-1981 alongwith the medical certificate of Dr. Jayant Kharkar filed in the proceedings before the Small Causes Court was misplaced as the said documents relate to the period prior in point of time to the date of execution of the Will dated 15-11-1983. Alternatively, he submitted that even if the medical certificate of Dr. Kharkar certifying that the testator had Ischaemia and was advised complete rest for a short time would not show or even hint at any mental incapacity of the testator. The learned Counsel submitted the caveators led no evidence and there was no justification on the part of the learned Testamentary Judge in being influenced by the circumstances firstly which were not suspicious and if held to be so, they were sufficiently explained. The learned Counsel also brought to our notice the long delay in delivery of the judgment by the learned Testamentary Judge. 7. The learned Counsel also brought to our notice the long delay in delivery of the judgment by the learned Testamentary Judge. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings of the learned Testamentary Judge and submitted that the learned Testamentary Judge had appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective and did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will were so suspicious that it was impossible to believe that the Will was executed at the place and at the time and in the manner suggested by the propounder. 8. The learned Counsel for the parties referred to various judgments. We deem it unnecessary to refer to all such judgments as in our considered view the judgment of the Supreme Court in (H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 443, lays down the guidelines concerning the proof of Will, the appreciation of evidence and the duty of the Court in the matters of proof of the Will which have been consistently followed in subsequent decisions. The decisions, of course, turned on their own facts. With regard to the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills, after taking into consideration the provisions of the sections 45, 47, 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act and sections 59, 63 of the Succession Act, the Supreme Court observed thus: "(18) What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? It is well known topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. 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, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any persons, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of the experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. 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 providing 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 a Court of law. Similarly, sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature of mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This section also requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. 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. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? Did he put his signature to the Will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of Wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by section 65 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 Will mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters." 9. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof Will mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters." 9. Observing that unlike other documents, Will speaks from the death of the testator and so when it is propounded or produced before this Court, the testator who already departed the world cannot say whether it is his Will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces element of solemnity of the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the deceased testator, the Supreme Court held that the propounder must 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 dispositions and put his signature on the document of his own free Will. In the cases in which the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the Apex Court held that the Court would expect naturally that all the legitimate suspicions are removed by the propounder before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. It was also held that the presence of suspicious circumstances make the initial onus on the propounder very heavy and unless it is satisfactorily discharged, the Court would be reluctant to treat the document as the last Will of the testator. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Report, the Supreme Court held thus: (20) There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the Will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Report, the Supreme Court held thus: (20) There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the Will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounders case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testators mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the Will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the Will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testators free Will and mind. In such cases 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. The presence of suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last Will of the testator. It is true that, if the caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the Will propounded, such please may, have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free Will in executing the Will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter. (21) Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the Wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the Wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with Wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English Courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by the ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to Wills, but any objection to the use of the word conscience in this context would in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely, emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is the last Will of the testator, the Court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive. 10. Put briefly, the Supreme Court has laid down the legal position that a propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will and if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. However, the application of this legal position would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and the quality of the evidence adduced by the parties-no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence in the application for probate of Wills. 11. We shall now turn to the evidence that has come on record. Oral evidence first. The propounder-Dr. Niranjan Joshi is the P.W. 1. He is qualified Doctor and specialised in Gynaecology and Obstretics. His qualifications are M.D. (Obst. Gyt.), FISC FCPC, D.G.O. D.F.P. He has his own clinic and hospital at Parel. According to him, in the month of November, 1983, his father (the testator) started having the problem of cough and respiration. Dr. Panikar who is MD, FCPS and practices as family physician in the building next to theirs was consulted. His qualifications are M.D. (Obst. Gyt.), FISC FCPC, D.G.O. D.F.P. He has his own clinic and hospital at Parel. According to him, in the month of November, 1983, his father (the testator) started having the problem of cough and respiration. Dr. Panikar who is MD, FCPS and practices as family physician in the building next to theirs was consulted. Initially, there was opposition by his father in getting himself examined by Dr. Panikar but on the request of his mother Tarabai, his father permitted Dr. Panikar to examine him. Dr. Panikar found that his father was suffering from respiratory infection. Dr. Panikar recommended allopathic drugs but his father did not take the drugs prescribed by Dr. Panikar. His fathers infection went on increasing and he started becoming more and more restless. On 13-11-1983, his mother could not see his fathers condition and called upon Dr. Panikar. Dr. Panikar examined him and recommended hospitalisation. His father refused to be hospitalised but his mother and other family members convinced him to be hospitalised for a couple of days for complete medical check up. Thus on 13-11-1983, his father was admitted into Breach Candy Hospital. His father was put under the treatment of Dr. Farookh Udwadia in the hospital. Dr. Panikar had informed Dr. Udwadia about his fathers refusal to take any allopathic drugs and, therefore, it was decided that he must be medicated through injections. On 14-11-1983, his father requested him to contact M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co. the law firm. He went to M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co. and took Mr. Mahimkar, Advocate to the hospital. His father knew Mr. Mahimkar since the time of his sister Sujatas elopement. After taking Mr. Mahimkar to the ICU where his father was admitted, he left the room and waited outside for about 10-15 minutes and then, left for his clinic on the urgent call. In the evening at about 5 pm, he again went to Breach Candy hospital alongwith his brother Pravin, who had come from Mangalore and their mother. His father wanted to have a talk with his mother and, therefore, he and his brother left the room and then he left for his clinic. On 15-11-2003, in response to the message received from Mr. Mahimkar, he went to Mr. Mahimakars office at 2 pm in the afternoon. Mr. Mahimkar was waiting for him with some documents. Mr. His father wanted to have a talk with his mother and, therefore, he and his brother left the room and then he left for his clinic. On 15-11-2003, in response to the message received from Mr. Mahimkar, he went to Mr. Mahimakars office at 2 pm in the afternoon. Mr. Mahimkar was waiting for him with some documents. Mr. Mahimkar told him that his father wanted to execute power of attorney and also Will and for that purpose they had to collect Mr. Phadke, a Notary, from his Office. He then went to Mr. Phadkes office and took Mr. Phadke and also his clerk to Breach Candy hospital. At the Breach Candy hospital, Mr. Mahimkar and Mr. Phadke discussed something with his father and his father signed the power of attorney. His father requested him to drop Mr. Phadke at his office. He went to drop Mr. Phadke. When he returned back, Mr. Mahimkar had finished his work and was waiting outside ICU. He dropped Mr. Mahimkar to his office and then went to his clinic. On his way, he went to Mr. Phadkes office and collected the power of attorney which was executed by his father in his favour. In the evening, when he went to the hospital, his father told him that the power of attorney was executed in his favour and he should make use of it. He deposed that on 21-11-1983, his father was discharged in the evening from Breach Candy hospital. He took his father home to their Dadar residence alongwith his brother Sudarshan and the mother. He stated that on 22-11-2003, his fathers condition was excellent right upto 9 pm when he saw him. Dr. Panikar also visited him same night and nothing wrong was found. Around 5.45 am early in the morning at his hospital on 23-11-1983, he received telephone call from his residence informing him that his fathers condition had become serious but by the time he reached his residence, his father was dead. At his mothers instance he contacted Mr. Mahimkar to find out the convenient date for disclosure of the contents of the Will. Mr. Mahimkar fixed 7-12-1983. On 7-12-1983, he, his mother and brothers-Pravin and Sudarshan-went to Mr. Mahimkars office. Mr. Mahimkar took out a sealed envelope from his safe, opened it and read out the contents appointing him (P.W. 1) the propounder, the executor and the legatee. Mahimkar to find out the convenient date for disclosure of the contents of the Will. Mr. Mahimkar fixed 7-12-1983. On 7-12-1983, he, his mother and brothers-Pravin and Sudarshan-went to Mr. Mahimkars office. Mr. Mahimkar took out a sealed envelope from his safe, opened it and read out the contents appointing him (P.W. 1) the propounder, the executor and the legatee. He stated that after the xerox copies of the Will were furnished, a meeting was arranged amongst all brothers except Pravin and all of them had consented and welcomed the Will. Pravin had already given his consent. This witness has been extensively cross-examined. He would not know the exact cause of his fathers death, though a prominent professional doctor. He denied that his father was suffering from Liposarcoma. He was not able to say, that 20 days before his father expired, he was suffering from Bronchopneumonia. He was unable to recollect whether he had any discussion with Dr. Panikar regarding administration of drugs to his father either intraveinously or intra muscularly. Surprisingly, beyond knowing that his father had respiratory problem and that he refused to take any drugs and the drugs have to be given intraveinously which required him to be shifted to the hospital, he knew nothing more about his fathers ailment though he admitted that he used to examine his father before he was shifted to the hospital. He would not remember having seen his fathers case papers in hospital. He was not able to say whether his father had cardiac Asthma or not. He was not able to tell under what circumstances and how his hospitals rubber stamp was affixed on the death certificate of the testator issued by Dr. Panikar. One thing is very clear from his testimony that he has not been candid before the Court. He has tried to hide the ailments of he testator and the real cause of his death. He had not been wholly truthful in disclosure of the true facts about the health of the testator. He feigned his ignorance as to the history of the testator when he was admitted in the hospital. In his cross-examination, at one stage he would even say that he did not know why Mr. Mahimkar was called on 15-11-1983 though he brought Mr. Mahimkar to the hospital. Though he admitted that Dr. Gandhi was his class-mate, he feigned ignorance whether Dr. In his cross-examination, at one stage he would even say that he did not know why Mr. Mahimkar was called on 15-11-1983 though he brought Mr. Mahimkar to the hospital. Though he admitted that Dr. Gandhi was his class-mate, he feigned ignorance whether Dr. Gandhi was asked to attest the Will or not. Having considered the entire evidence of this witness, we find that the impression gathered by the learned Testamentary Judge from this evidence that he was out to keep away the real illness and the real cause of death of the testator from the Court cannot be said to be without basis. We also share the view of the learned Testamentary Judge that the evidence of P.W. 1 the propounder is not reliable. 12. The next witness examined by the propounder was his mother as P.W. 2. She deposed that in the first week on November, 1983, the testator suffered from cold and cough. His cold and cough kept on increasing and even started becoming more and more restless. On 13-11-1983, Dr. Panikar, the family physician, was called. He persuaded her husband to be admitted to hospital. On 13-11-1983, at about 8 pm in the evening, her husband was taken to the Breach Candy Hospital. Within a few minutes, Dr. Udwadia came and after examining her husband, Dr. Udwadia told her and the other family members to go home. On 14-11-1983 in the evening at about 5 pm. her husband told his son and daughter-in-law to go out as he wanted to talk to her. Her husband told her that after discharge from the hospital, they Will go to Manor and that he wanted to give away his estate and everything to someone. He told her that he wanted to give his gadi to someone who would continue his work after which they would go and stay at Manor without any work. On 15-11-1983 at around 5 Oclock in the evening her husband told her that he had made a Will. He also told her that the Will was made in favour of their son Dr. Niranjan. She was told by her husband not to disclose this to anyone. She stated that during her husbands hospitalisation, she visited her husband regularly and found his mental and physical condition completely alright. On 21-11-2003, her husband was taken back home. On reaching home, he did not take any medicine. Niranjan. She was told by her husband not to disclose this to anyone. She stated that during her husbands hospitalisation, she visited her husband regularly and found his mental and physical condition completely alright. On 21-11-2003, her husband was taken back home. On reaching home, he did not take any medicine. On 22-11-1983, he met many visitors and his health was absolutely alright. Before going to sleep, on 22-11-1983, her husband asked her to shut the door. He give her the keys which he would always carry with him tied to his sacred thread. Then her husband asked her to open the safe and find out the money kept inside. She counted the money and put it back in the safe. Her husband told her to give the keys their son Dr. Niranjan. Next morning at around 5 am on 23-11-1983 her husband asked her to prepare coffee for both of them. She prepared the coffee. After they finished the coffee, she found her husbands hands cold. She called her son Vishnu. Vishnu checked her husbands pulse and telephoned Niranjan at his hospital. Vishnu also telephoned Dr. Panikar. Dr. Panikar arrived within 15 minutes and 5 minutes later Niranjan arrived. By that time, her husband had already died. After 10 to 12 days of mourning, she informed her children that the deceased had made a Will and as she did not know the contents thereof. The appointment of the Solicitor was fixed and on 7-12-1983, she and her three sons Pravin, Sudarshan and Niranjan went to the office of the solicitor. Mr. Mahimkar read the Will and gave the xerox copies of the Will. She stated that the testator had not approved Sujatas marriage as she eloped and he was strongly opposed to her marriage as her husband was a Muslim. In her cross-examination, she stated that prior to her husbands hospitalisation, he had no illness whatsoever. She denied that her husband was suffering from any heart ailment. She also denied that her husband was a patient of Dr. Kharkar for his heart ailment. She feigned her ignorance to the affidavit filed in the Small Causes Court and the medical certificate of Dr. Kharkar and Dr. Vora. She denied that her husband had Asthma during the illness. She admitted that in the hospital her husband was given medicines by way of injections. Kharkar for his heart ailment. She feigned her ignorance to the affidavit filed in the Small Causes Court and the medical certificate of Dr. Kharkar and Dr. Vora. She denied that her husband had Asthma during the illness. She admitted that in the hospital her husband was given medicines by way of injections. She denied initially that her husband was admitted in Tata Memorial hospital in 1982 but later on admitted that about 2-3 years prior to 1982 her husband was taken to the said hospital for removal of tumour from his leg. She stated that her husband on 14-11-1983 asked her whether he should execute the Will and power of attorney in her name but she said that he should execute the power of attorney and Will in favour of the person whom he loved and trusted the most. Her husband told her that Niranjan had assisted him in treating the patients at Manor and also helped him in Yogic activities, and, therefore, he wanted to give everything to Niranjan. On 15-11-1983 in the evening her husband told her that he had got the Will made and also executed the power of attorney in favour of Niranjan. She admitted that her husband was very fond of his grand children. She first feigned ignorance about the ejectment suit against Patwardhan but later on admitted that such suit was filed. She was confronted with medical papers and the suit papers but she denied. The learned Testamentary Judge in the light of the documentary evidence that had come on record and on appreciation of her evidence formed the opinion that this witness was not candid to the Court as she kept away from the Court the past illnesses, the ailment which necessitated the hospitalisation, the medicines given, the real condition of the deceased and the real reason why the deceased was discharged and above all, the cause of death. The learned Testamentary Judge found her evidence unsatisfactory. Having sifted her evidence carefully, we find no justifiable reason to have a different view. Her evidence lacks the credibility as she was not forthright in disclosing the correct health condition of her husband. All in all she appears to be tutored witness. 13. The third witness is Mr. K.M. Mahimkar (P.W. 3). He was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1972. He joined the law firm-M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co. Her evidence lacks the credibility as she was not forthright in disclosing the correct health condition of her husband. All in all she appears to be tutored witness. 13. The third witness is Mr. K.M. Mahimkar (P.W. 3). He was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1972. He joined the law firm-M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co. as an assistant Advocate in the year 1972. He is said to have met the testator in the year 1976 in connection with Sujatas matrimonial matter. It is his testimony that on 14-11-2003 he was called by Mr. Ramesh Shroff (the proprietor of the law firm M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co.) in his chamber. At that time, Dr. Niranjan was also there. Mr. Ramesh Shroff asked him to accompany Dr. Niranjan to the hospital where the testator was being hospitalised and to take instructions from him. He deposed that since he had some Court work, he told Mr. Shroff that he would finish that work and then go to the hospital. After finishing the Court work, he reached his office around 12.15 in the afternoon and after about 15 minutes left the office with Dr. Niranjan for the hospital. Dr. Niranjan took him to the ICU of Breach Candy Hospital where he met the testator. The testator recognised him. A little later Dr. Niranjan left the cubicle. The testator told him that he wanted to give instructions for preparation of the Will and the power of attorney. Dr. Niranjan then returned to the cubicle and informed them that he had to leave for his hospital. The testator gave him (the witness) some instructions about the power of attorney. He took down the instructions and the particulars given by the testator. The testator also told him that he wanted to make a Will. He informed him that after consulting his wife he would inform him (the witness) on the following day. The testator told him specifically that he wanted to sign the power of attorney and the Will on the following day and he should come prepared for that. The witness then left the testator for his office. He informed Mr. Ramesh Shroff about his meeting with the testator in the hospital. The witness prepared the draft of the power of attorney on that very day. On 15-11-1983, the power of attorney was engrossed. He got in touch with Mr. The witness then left the testator for his office. He informed Mr. Ramesh Shroff about his meeting with the testator in the hospital. The witness prepared the draft of the power of attorney on that very day. On 15-11-1983, the power of attorney was engrossed. He got in touch with Mr. V.A. Phadke, a Notary Public, and enquired with him whether it was possible for him to accompany him to the hospital on that day. Mr. Phadke agreed that on 15-11-1983 after 2.30 p.m. it would be convenient for him. He then contacted Dr. Niranjans hospital but he was not there. He left a message. At about 2 pm., Dr. Niranjan came to his office. He went alongwith Dr. Niranjan to Mr. Phadkes office. He carried with him the engrossed power of attorney, the precedent of Will and the Will papers. He, Mr. Phadke, his clerk and Dr. Niranjan reached the hospital at about 15.30 hrs. The witness Mr. Phadke, Dr. Niranjan went inside the cubicle where the testator was being hospitalised. He introduced Mr. Phadke, to the testator. He handed over the engrossed copy of the power of attorney to the testator. The testator approved the power of attorney and signed the document. Mr. Phadke directed his clerk to enter the power of attorney in his register. The testator signed in the register and Mr. Phakde also signed in the register. Dr. Niranjan, Mr. Phakde and his clerk thereafter left the cubicle and the witness remained with the testator. The testator told him that he had a discussion with his wife and that he had decided to leave all his property and his estate to Dr. Niranjan. The witness suggested to the testator that he would go back to the office for drafting the Will but the testator told him that the Will would be short document and the same could be done then and there. The testator gave him briefcase on which he placed the paper and started writing while sitting on the testators bed. The testator asked him to speak out loudly as to what he was writing. He asked the testator as to whom he wanted to appoint executor and he gave the name of Dr. Niranjan. As regards the two witnesses for attestation, the testator suggested that he (the witness) could sign as one witness and Dr. Bhupendrabhai, Gandhi as the other witness. He asked the testator as to whom he wanted to appoint executor and he gave the name of Dr. Niranjan. As regards the two witnesses for attestation, the testator suggested that he (the witness) could sign as one witness and Dr. Bhupendrabhai, Gandhi as the other witness. He completed the entire Will, gave it to the testator for going through it, the testator approved the Will and at that time Dr. Gandhi came to the cubicle. The testator asked Dr. Gandhi to attest the Will to which Dr. Gandhi agreed. The testator signed the Will on the first page and second page and the last against the execution clause. The witness as well as Dr. Gandhi signed the Will as attesting witnesses. The testator asked him to keep the Will in Mr. Shroffs custody. At about 5 Oclock in the evening Dr. Niranjan came to the hospital and the witness left with him. He stated that the Will was entirely in his handwriting. He admitted in his cross-examination that the cubicle occupied by the testator was a curtained cubicle only big enough for a cot to be kept there. He admitted that he did not tell the testator as to what particulars he should keep ready for the preparation of the Will. He did not ask the testator about his family members. He did not keep the notes prepared by him for the power of attorney and the same were not available with him. He admitted that on 15-11-1983 he was permitted to go inside the ICU during non-visiting hours as Dr. Niranjan requested the security personnel. In the cross-examination he admitted that he did not enquire with the testator whether he had made any Will earlier or made any testamentary disposition. He also admitted that the letter of consent given by family members was prepared by him in December 1984. He also admitted that he did not enquire from the testator as to why he was in ICU. He also did not enquire from the testator as to what he was suffering from. He did not make any enquiries as to who was the Doctor attending on the testator. As to why be did not get the mental and physical condition of the testator, certified from the Doctor attending on the testator, his only explanation was that it did not occur as him. He did not make any enquiries as to who was the Doctor attending on the testator. As to why be did not get the mental and physical condition of the testator, certified from the Doctor attending on the testator, his only explanation was that it did not occur as him. He admitted that on 15-11-1983, he informed Niranjan that the testator had executed a Will. However, he stated that he did not tell about the presence of the Will to him. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the testator on 14th or 15th November, 1983. He also denied the suggestion that Mr. Phadke had not accompanied him on 15-11-2003. He also denied the suggestion that the testator did not give him any instructions for preparation of the power of attorney or the Will. He also denied the suggestion that the Will did not bear the signature of the testator. He also denied the suggestion that Will did not bear the signature of Dr. Gandhi. He also denied the suggestion that on 14th and 15th November, 1983, the testator was not in a position to either read, understand or sign the Will or the power of attorney. The learned Testamentary Judge found that deposition of this witness was not convincing. The learned testamentary Judge observed that the entire story of his taking instructions in the cubicle, writing down the Will, sitting down on the cot of the deceased while writing down the Will, telling the deceased what was written giving the Will to the deceased for checking after the same was written down and the attestation part of its evidence does not at all sound convincing. We hold the same view. Here is an Advocate who scribes the Will, attests the Will, prepares the letter of consent after the death of the testator and receives instructions from the propounder for filing petition for probate. He is one of the Advocates engaged by the propounder in the petition for probate. It is very difficult to hold such witness independent. The learned Testamentary Judge cannot be said to have erred in observing with regard to this witness that it was unbelievable that the Will was at all written down and attested in the manner this witness deposed. We share the view of the learned Testamentary Judge that this witness has not stated truth before the Court. The learned Testamentary Judge cannot be said to have erred in observing with regard to this witness that it was unbelievable that the Will was at all written down and attested in the manner this witness deposed. We share the view of the learned Testamentary Judge that this witness has not stated truth before the Court. It does not sound to logic as deposed by him that he wrote the Will sitting on the cot and the paper for writing the Will was kept on the briefcase supplied by the testator and that he would take instructions from the testator and after writing every sentence would read it loudly. Would the hospital authorities permit this in ICU during non visiting hours when such loud conversation would affect other patients? Could such Will be scribed in fledless manner (the four page Will has no correction, overwriting etc. except one very minor overwriting) in the manner suggested by this witness? It seems highly improbable and rather unbelievable that the Will was written down in ICU cubicle. We agree with the observations of the learned Testamentary Judge that this within is unreliable and unworthy of credence. 14. The next witness is Dr. Bhupendrabhai v. Gandhi (P.W. 4). He deposed that on 15-11-1983 at about 4/4.30 p.m. he received a call from a nurse working in the ICU that the testator wanted to see him. He went to the ICU and found the testator sitting up on his cot. Mr. Mahimkar was also there. The testator introduced Mr. Mahimkar to him. He wanted him (the witness) to attest the Will. The witness deposed that he found the testator conscious and co-operative. He admitted that the testator was not his patient and was not under his treatment. He further admitted that on 14-11-1983 for the first time he went to see the testator and introduced himself to the testator by saying that he was Dr. Bhupendra Gandhi and classmate of Dr. Niranjan. He stated that he was told by Dr. Niranjan that his father was in hospital and that he had breathing trouble. He also admitted in the cross-examination that though he had attested a few Wills earlier, it was the only case (in respect of the subject Will) that he attested the Will of a person who was not his patient. He stated that he was told by Dr. Niranjan that his father was in hospital and that he had breathing trouble. He also admitted in the cross-examination that though he had attested a few Wills earlier, it was the only case (in respect of the subject Will) that he attested the Will of a person who was not his patient. He admitted that there was nothing from the case papers that he could show that he examined the testator either on 14-11-1983 or 15-11-1983. He admitted that in the case papers, the testator was shown to be suffering from left ventricular failure with Ischemia heart disease with malignancy Liposarcoma. He also admitted that the case papers indicated that on the day the testator was admitted in the hospital that he was suspected of Malingnancy. He also admitted that if a possession round to be suffering from left ventricular failure Ischemia and malignancy, such person cannot be considered to be in sound physical health. To a suggestion, he opined that in the case of excruciating pain, sedatives are prescribed and the sedatives are likely to affect the patients mind. He could not recollect the drugs administered to the testator. He admitted that he was aware that the testator was in charge of Dr. Udwadia. He also admitted that he did not examine the testator at the time he attested the Will. The evidence of this witness gives an impression that he came on the scene being the classmate of the propounder. How could it be believed that this witness who went to see the testator for the first time on 14-11-1983 while he was in the hospital is called by the testator next day for attesting the Will? The testator was not his patient. He had not attested any Will executed by a person who was not his patient except the subject Will. He did not examine the testator at the time of attestation of Will. It is highly doubtful that the Will was attested by him at the time, place and the manner suggested. But one thing, the testimony of this witness clearly reflects that the testator as per the case papers was suffering from left ventricular failure, Ischemia heart disease and Liposarcoma. His evidence also shows that if a person is found to be suffering from such ailment, he cannot be considered to be in sound physical health. But one thing, the testimony of this witness clearly reflects that the testator as per the case papers was suffering from left ventricular failure, Ischemia heart disease and Liposarcoma. His evidence also shows that if a person is found to be suffering from such ailment, he cannot be considered to be in sound physical health. Thus is a way his evidence demolishes the testimony of P.W. 1 Dr. Niranjan and P.W. 2. 15. Now we shall turn to the last witness. He is Dr. Vijay Kumar Panikar (P.W. 5). He started his consulting practice in October, 1982. His consulting room is next to the building of the propounder. On 2-11-1983 this witness is said to have examined the testator and found that he had severe chest infection, cough and breathlessness. According to him, the testator did not believe in taking allopathic drugs and though he prescribed the medicines, the same were not taken by the testator. On 13-11-1983 he was called again to examine the testator and he found that the testator was coughing heavily. The witness suggested that the testator be hospitalised. He made arrangements for taking the testator to Breach Candy hospital. He contacted Dr. Udwadia and arranged for a bed in the ICU. According to him, the testator was very adamant in not going to the hospital but on the continuous persuasion he agreed to go to the hospital. He is said to have visited the testator in the hospital on 14-11-1983 and for about 2-3 days. On 21-11-1983, the testator was discharged. According to him, whenever he visited the testator during the period from 2-11-1983 to 13-11-1983 and from 13-11-1983 to 21-11-1983, he found his mental condition alright. On 23-11-1983 morning, he received the call and when he went to the testators house, he found him dead. In his cross-examination he admitted that the testator was not his patient prior to November, 1983. He admitted that during his visits to the residence of the testator before and after the hospitalisation, he discussed the condition of the testator with the members of the family and the Doctors. He suggested hospitalisation of the testator as he was 75 years of age and his Bronchpneumonia was deteriorating. He admitted that he did not have the case papers of the testator as he was his neighbour. He suggested hospitalisation of the testator as he was 75 years of age and his Bronchpneumonia was deteriorating. He admitted that he did not have the case papers of the testator as he was his neighbour. He also admitted that the testator had undergone surgery at Tata Memorial hospital about 10-15 years prior to 1983 for a benign tumour. He admitted that on a patient being admitted in Breach Candy hospital, the case papers are maintained and the case papers would give the history of the past and present ailment and illness of the patient. The case papers would also show the suspected ailment for which the patient had been admitted. He admitted that the history of the testator had a mention of Liposarcoma as the resident Doctor was informed about the same. He also agreed that the case papers would also show the treatment given to the patient throughout the entire hospitalisation and progress of the patient would also be reflected from the case papers. In his cross-examination he admitted that it was possible that the deceased might have died of a massive heart attack. He admitted that all the family members were present when he prepared the death certificate. He admitted that the death certificate given by him was Exhibit 12. He admitted that the testator was a potential candidate for respiratory failure. He could not dispute that the form on which the death certificate was issued by him had the stamp of the Parel Hospital run by the propounder. He deposed that he mentioned Liposarcoma on the death certificate as it was mandatory that the ailments of the deceased be mentioned in the certificate. He admitted in the cross-examination that Dr. Niranjan was his teacher in the Grant Medical College and he knew Dr. Niranjan since 1973. He being the student of the testator, his interest is obvious. The death certificate is issued by him on a form which bears the stamp of Parel Hospital, run by Dr. Niranjan. If his testimony is to be believed, the form of death certificate was supplied to him by Dr. Niranjan. The testator is said to be his patient but admittedly he never took the medicines prescribed by this witness. The witness does not have any case papers of the testator. Niranjan. If his testimony is to be believed, the form of death certificate was supplied to him by Dr. Niranjan. The testator is said to be his patient but admittedly he never took the medicines prescribed by this witness. The witness does not have any case papers of the testator. In the circumstances, the observations of the learned testamentary Judge that this witness was also like, other witnesses and that his evidence was unreliable and unsatisfactory cannot be said to be erroneous. 16. We may state here that while scanning the oral evidence that we have indicated above, we considered the relevant documentary evidence, inter alia; (i) the Will; (ii) the power of attorney; (iii) the entry in the birth and death register; (iv) the medical certificate; (v) the death report of the Bombay Municipal Corporation; (vi) the medical certificate dated 7-12-1983; (vii) the application made by Sudarshan (one of the brothers of the testator) for examining the testator on commission in eviction suit; (viii) the medical certificate dated 11-12-1982 given by one Mr. A.M. Vora and (ix) the extract of the submission of Mr. Sabnis, Advocate of the plaintiff and other heirs of the testator in the eviction suit. 17. Having considered the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence-besides that the oral evidence lacks credibility and credence-we find that many circumstances surrounding the Will are suspicious and have not been satisfactorily explained or dispelled. The unexplained suspicious circumstances are; (a) The prominent part taken by the propounder in execution of the Will. He is the sole recipient of the legacy under the Will. The family of the testator is quite big. Besides the propounder, the testator had one more son and the daughter-in-law as professional doctors but it is the propounder who takes the testator and gets him admitted. He contacts the office of the solicitors - M/s. Ramesh Shroff Co. Though a busy doctor, he takes M/s. Mahimkar, Solicitor to the hospital on 14-11-1983 and convinces the security personnel to permit him and the solicitor to visit the testator during non-visiting hours. It is he who brings back Mr. Mahimkar to his office. On 15-11-1983 again the propounder takes the solicitor, the notary and his clerk to the hospital. He requests the security personnel of the hospital to permit the solicitor, notary and his clerk to visit the testator during the non-visiting hours. It is he who brings back Mr. Mahimkar to his office. On 15-11-1983 again the propounder takes the solicitor, the notary and his clerk to the hospital. He requests the security personnel of the hospital to permit the solicitor, notary and his clerk to visit the testator during the non-visiting hours. Immediately after the Will is executed, the propounder returns to the hospital and takes back Mr. Mahimkar to his office. Surely the propounder took prominent part in arranging the execution of the Will keeping all other members of the family away from the deceased. There is no satisfactory explanation why the other family members were not associated in the matter of execution of the Will. (b) The dispositions in the Will by the testator are unnatural, unfair and improbable as is apparent from the exclusion of wife, all other children and grand children. Admittedly, the testator had six sons and three daughters besides the propounder and about 15 grand children. Save and except the daughter Sujata, the deceased had love and liking for all. Even if the wife declined to have the Will executed in her favour as deposed by her, it is highly unnatural that the deceased would not provide for her during her lifetime and leave her to the mercy of somebody. There is no recital in the Will as to why there was exclusion of the wife and the other children and grand children and the bequest had been made solely in favour of the propounder. The Will is absolutely silent about this. (c) No recital in the Will why the testator desired to execute the Will in the hospital. There is no evidence worth the name that until the testator was admitted in the hospital on 13-11-1983, at any point of time, he disclosed his intention or desire to execute the Will and bequeath his property. What happened so sudden and fast that in less than 24 hours of his hospitalisation, the testator told his wife that he intended to execute the Will and bequeath his property. An intention not disclosed earlier by the testator at any point of time. What was so special that within 24 hours of his admission in the hospital the testator decides to execute the power of attorney in favour of the propounder. (d) The unsatisfactory evidence in support of the Will. The witnesses are interested persons. An intention not disclosed earlier by the testator at any point of time. What was so special that within 24 hours of his admission in the hospital the testator decides to execute the power of attorney in favour of the propounder. (d) The unsatisfactory evidence in support of the Will. The witnesses are interested persons. The propounder as well as the wife of the deceased suppressed the real cause of the death of the deceased. They have not been truthful about the ailment and the illness of the testator. Dr. Farookh Udwadia who was treating the testator has not been examined. The complete case papers of the Breach Candy hospital pertaining to the testator were not got produced. Examination of Dr. Udwadia and the production of hospital case papers would have thrown the immense light on the physical and mental condition of the testator during his hospitalisation in the Breach Candy hospital. Dr. Gandhi one of the attesting witnesses to the Will is the class-mate of the propounder. Dr. Gandhi visits the testator for the first time on 14-11-1983 in the hospital. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why Dr. Gandhi was summoned by the testator to attest the Will when he was not under his treatment. Dr. Gandhi had never attested a Will of a person who was not his patient. Dr. Panikar had been the student of the propounder. He issues a death certificate of the testator bearing the stamp Parel Hospital. The Parel Hospital is run by the propounder. Mr. Mahimkar, the scribe and the attesting witness of the Will is known to the propounder. Mr. Mahimkar is given instructions by the propounder to file the petition for probate and then he appears as a witness. We are afraid the oral evidence in support of the Will is highly unsatisfactory and is that of interested persons. (e) Was the testator terminally ill? In eight days of the execution of the Will the testator dies. The testator is admitted in the hospital on 13-11-1983 at about 8 p.m. On 14-11-1983, he discloses his intention to execute the Will. The Will is said to have been executed on 15-11-1983. He is discharged from the hospital on 21-11-1983. On 22-11-1983 the testator gives his wife the keys of the safe, asks her to open the safe and take out the money lying therein. The Will is said to have been executed on 15-11-1983. He is discharged from the hospital on 21-11-1983. On 22-11-1983 the testator gives his wife the keys of the safe, asks her to open the safe and take out the money lying therein. He further asks her to count the money and keep the money back and then instructs her to give the keys of the safe to the propounder in the morning and in the morning on 23-11-1983 the testator dies. Was it premonition or that the testator was so critically ill that he thought his death was near and he would not survive for a long? What was there that on 22-11-1983 when the testator went to sleep he asked his wife to hand over the keys of the safe to the propounder. All these questions remain unanswered in the evidence. (f) There is no satisfactory evidence as to why the testator decided to summon Dr. Gandhi for attestation of the Will. The nurse who is said to have called Dr. Gandhi telling him that the testator wanted him in the ICU has not been examined. Dr. Gandhi entered the cubicle when the deceased approved the Will. Was it a chance? Was it coincidence? Dr. Gandhi was not the doctor attending on the deceased. Dr. Gandhi meets the testator only on 14-11-1983 introducing himself as a friend of the propounder and the next day the testator calls him for the attestation of the Will. Mr. Mahimkar stated in his deposition, "..............The deceased approved the Will. In the meantime Dr. Gandhi came to the cubicle. The deceased requested Dr. Gandhi to attest the Will and Dr. Gandhi agreed. The deceased signed the Will on the 1st page, 2nd page and the last page against the execution clause. These signatures were put in our presence i.e., myself and Dr. Gandhi. Both of us viz., myself and Dr. Gandhi signed as requested by the deceased in presence of each other and in presence of the deceased. Dr. Gandhi at that stage left us ..........." Mr. Mahimkar however also deposed, "except the nurse who came to the cubicle couple of times, during the time I was with the testator after departure of Mr. Phadke, no one else came to the cubicle till I left the cubicle while I was writing out the Will of the ...............". Dr. Gandhi at that stage left us ..........." Mr. Mahimkar however also deposed, "except the nurse who came to the cubicle couple of times, during the time I was with the testator after departure of Mr. Phadke, no one else came to the cubicle till I left the cubicle while I was writing out the Will of the ...............". The evidence creates doubt about the execution or attestation of the Will as alleged by the Mr. Mahimkar and Dr. Gandhi. (g) There is no satisfactory evidence about the cause of death of the testator. Was it bronchopneumonia? Was it left ventricular failure? Was it Malignancy (Leposarcoma)? Was it due to all these ailments? Was he discharged from the hospital on 21-11-1983 so that he could die peacefully at his home? There is no satisfactory explanation to these questions? (h) On 15-11-1983, the Will is prepared and executed during non visiting hours in the ICU cubicle. The Advocate Mr. Mahimkar deposed that while he was writing down the Will, at the end of every sentence he used to read out loudly to the deceased and then only proceed further. The ICU cubicle is separated by the curtains only and it was bound to disturb other patients. No independent witness from the hospital has been examined that during non visiting hours such act could have been done in the ICU and that at all visitors visited the testator on 14-11-1983 and 15-11-1983 and stayed with him during non visiting hours. (i) There is no evidence about the medicines administered to the deceased in the hospital. He was admittedly administered drugs through injections. Was he given sedatives? Was he given pain killers? No hospital record was got produced which may have thrown light about the medicines administered to the testator. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testators mind, the dispositions made under the Will being unnatural or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances or there may be other indications in the Will or surrounding circumstances to show that the testators mind was not free. From what we have noticed above, we may say without hesitation that the propounder has failed to clear the dark clouds hovering over the Will. From what we have noticed above, we may say without hesitation that the propounder has failed to clear the dark clouds hovering over the Will. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the view of the learned Testamentary Judge that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will are so suspicious that it is impossible to believe that the Will was executed at the place and at the time and in the manner suggested by the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that all the family members of the testator except Sujata had given their consent to the Will dated 15-11-1983 does not improve the case of the appellant. The legal position admits of no ambiguity that where the Will is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the Will as genuine. It is for the propounder to remove the suspicious circumstances and satisfy the conscience of the Court and unless it is satisfactorily discharged the Court would be reluctant to treat the document at the last Will of the testator. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we need not repeat them, the propounder has failed to explain the suspicious circumstances by cogent, independent and satisfactory evidence. That is what has been held by the learned testamentary Judge and we affirm his view. 18. The contention that the learned Testamentary Judge did not answer any of the issues specifically is noted to be rejected. The learned Testamentary Judge held specifically that it was not possible to believe that the Will was executed at a place and at the time and in the manner suggested by the propounder. That is the crux of the matter. 19. We, therefore, find no case for interference in the appeal. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -----