Judgment :- M.N. Krishnan, J. This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda in Succ.O.P.No.31 of 2001. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows: Petitioners herein are the mother and nephew of one Jayaprakash, who died on 16.10.2001 and the respondent is his widow. The family of Jayaprakash consisted of the mother, son, sister and wife. It is the case of the petitioners that Jayaprakash has executed a Will on 12.4.2000 by virtue of which all his assets were to devolve upon the mother, viz., the first petitioner and the nephew, viz., Sivan, who is the second petitioner. In case of the mother pre-deceasing Jayapraksh the assets have to go to the other children of the first petitioner's daughter Sarala, viz., Haridas and Rajesh. According to the petitioners, the relationship between Jayaprakash and his wife, viz., the respondent was strained and she had voluntarily deserted him and never cared to look after him and therefore he had disinherited her from getting any property. Therefore, on the basis of the Will they claim for issuance of succession certificate to realize the amount due to Mr. Jayaprakash from banks and other institutions. 2. On the other hand, the respondent would contend that the averment in the petition that she had deserted Jayaprakash is incorrect. He was a Government employee working in different places and during his absence and while the respondent was residing with the mother and thereafter with the family of the sister of Jayaprakash she was habitually ill-treated which forced her to be away from the matrimonial home. The said Jayaprakash had written letter to her even in September, 2000 expressing his wish to join her and also in the year 1997 he had made her nominee of the savings bank accounts. It is contended that the Will is manipulated most probably on a blank paper which contained the signature of Jayaprakash in order to deprive the valid right of the respondent and therefore contends that a succession certificate as prayed for cannot be issued in favour of the petitioners. 3. In the trial court, PWs.1 and 2 and RWs. 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.B 1 were marked. 3. In the trial court, PWs.1 and 2 and RWs. 1 to 3 were examined. Exts.A1 to A25 and Ext.B 1 were marked. On analysis of the evidence, the trial court found that the wife had deserted the husband but came to the conclusion that the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances and there was doubt regarding genuineness of the execution itself and therefore found the plea of genuineness of Will against the petitioners and ultimately granted a succession certificate in favour of the first petitioner and the respondent. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 4. The points that arise for determination are: (1) Whether the trial court had travelled beyond the scope of enquiry under S.373(3) of the Indian Succession Act and (2) Whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial court. 5. Points 1 & 2: Under S.373(3) of the Indian Succession Act, the District Judge is only expected to conduct a summary enquiry and if he finds that the matter requires a detailed adjudication he can direct the party to resort to other litigations and if he is prima facie, satisfied he may issue a succession certificate. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the trial court, having found that the wife was not resid­ing with the husband and that their matrimonial relationship was not good and further that the Will is proved by examining the attesting witness it should have found that prima facie, petitioners have satisfied about the genuineness of the Will and should have granted a succession certificate as prayed for in the petition. 6. In a recent decision rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in Elsy v. Raju (2006 (4) KLT 890) it has been held that "probate court is not a court of probity and that court is not expected to ask whether the testator bequeathed his property as the court thinks he ought to have done. If the propounder proves the bona fides of the transaction recorded in the testamentary instrument and there are no circumstances suggesting suspicion, there is no legal impediment in granting probate". It was also a case where the court was considering an unregistered Will. So in that decision the learned Judge had made it clear that there shall not be circumstances suggesting suspicion. 7. It was also a case where the court was considering an unregistered Will. So in that decision the learned Judge had made it clear that there shall not be circumstances suggesting suspicion. 7. When a party claims property on the basis of a Will the Apex Court in the decision reported in H. Venkatachala v. B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR 1959 SC 443) held that the party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, reference must inevitably be made to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. It further held that when there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will it is the duty of the propounder to remove the same. So a person claiming benefit under a Will has a duty to satisfy the conscience of the court about the genu­ineness of the Will as well as the duty to remove the suspicious circumstances, if any. The same view has been followed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Ramachandra v. Champabai (AIR 1965 SC 354) that "in all cases in which a Will is prepared under circumstances which arouse the suspicion of the Court that it does not express the mind of the testator, or that it was prepared under highly suspicious cir­cumstances, it is for the propounder of the Will to remove that suspicion". 8. Learned counsel for the appellants had cited various decisions and contended that the scope of enquiry under S.373 is limited and therefore a prima facie satisfaction is sufficient to give a verdict in favour of his client. It is true that under S.373 of the Indian Succession Act, what is contemplated is a summary enquiry and when the subject matter is a Will if there is prima facie evidence of its due execution and that it is not shrouded with any suspicious circumstances then the court can act upon it without going further into the matter. 9. With this principle, let us analyze the evidence before court to find out whether prima facie the appellants had succeeded in satisfying the conscience of the court. It is true that in this case all was not well with the husband and wife. 9. With this principle, let us analyze the evidence before court to find out whether prima facie the appellants had succeeded in satisfying the conscience of the court. It is true that in this case all was not well with the husband and wife. According to the petitioners, the wife started living separately from 1990 whereas according to the wife she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in 1992 and that too was with the silent consent of the husband. Ext.A1 is the Will. It is written on two plain papers and it is not registered. We are aware that a Will is not a compulsorily registrable document. But at the same time when a Will is registered, it has got at least the sanctity of such a document being executed before a competent authority, viz. the Sub Registrar. Here, the deceased Jayaprakash retired as a Deputy Town Planner on 16.10.2001. The Will is dated 12.4.2000. Ext.B1 is a letter written by Jayaprakash to his wife while he was undergoing treatment in Medicare Hospital. Kodungallur. It is recited in that letter that he may like to have the presence of his wife for nursing and therefore requested the wife to come and join him in the hospital without the knowledge or without informing others. If really, the husband had nothing to do with the wife and she had been kept away from his mind, certainly he would not have written such a letter to her on 20.9.2000, i.e. after the execution of the alleged Will on 12.4.2000. When the factum of this letter was put to PW1, viz., the second petitioner it is deposed by him that the said letter was in the handwriting of deceased Jayaprakash, Ext.B1 letter goes a long way to establish that even in September, 2000 the husband had all concern for the wife and wanted the presence of his wife near him during the period of hospitalization. 10. 10. Another important circumstance which has to be looked into is that if really the husband and wife had fallen apart physically and mentally from 1990 or 1992 onwards it can be seen that in the year 1997 so far as it related to the savings bank account in the Kodungallur Sub Treasury, a nomination was given authorizing the wife to receive the amount or in other words she was the nominee of the husband with respect to that amount. So even in 1997 the wife was not attempted to be deprived of the assets of Sri. Jayaprakash. So this is also a tell tale circumstance against the case of the appellants herein. 11. The evidence in this case to prove the Will is that of PW2. PW2 is only a relative of Jayaprakash as well as the petitioners. He had failed in Pre-degree and he was working in a jewellery. According to him, he was taken by Jayaprakash on a day in the afternoon and from the residence of Jayaprakash he dictated the Will and there-after PW2 had fair written it and signed it. It has to be stated that the deceased was a qualified man who retired as a Deputy Town Planner and there was a Registrar's Office within 4 kms. from his place of residence and there was no difficulty for the said Jayaprakash for his mobility and it can be seen that according to PW2, Jayaprakash went to a much distant place to take him in order to prepare the Will. In the ordinary course of human conduct and especially when one wants to deprive the legal heir and that person is well educated he would have gone to a scribe, prepared the Will and in all possibility should have registered the Will. As opined by the trial court, there was no expertise for PW2 in writing a Will and even no expertise in the language and that is why the trial court has pointed out so many mistakes in Malayalam committed by the scribe. In paragraph 16 of the judgment the trial court observed that the ink has been spread on the reverse side of the page which according to him indicates that the signature in the document and the writing on the paper points out that it had been done at different points of time. 12. We have also perused the Will. In paragraph 16 of the judgment the trial court observed that the ink has been spread on the reverse side of the page which according to him indicates that the signature in the document and the writing on the paper points out that it had been done at different points of time. 12. We have also perused the Will. There is some force in what the learned trial Judge had observed. So the materials available and the evidence would show that the petitioners, viz., the appellants had not succeeded in proving the due execution of the Will as well as not succeeded in removing the suspicious circumstances to disinherit the wife. In a case of this nature, prima facie, satisfaction of the execution and genuineness of the Will is sine qua non to grant the relief in favour of the petitioners. The trial court had discussed the matter in detail to arrive at a decision. The evidence made available was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the Will and to explain away the suspicious circumstances. We also do not find any ground to deviate from the said finding and therefore the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed but without costs.