Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 935 (KAR)

Sri Raghu Kumar v. Parvathi

2009-12-01

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2009
Judgment :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.16802/2001 dated 14.6.2007 on the file of the 28th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The first and second respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit. The appellant and respondent No.3 were the defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the court below. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: The first plaintiff is the wife of M.C.Raju. The second plaintiff and the second defendant are his daughters and the first defendant is his son. M.C.Raju had executed a Will dated 16.4.1999 bequeathing his properties in favour of his children equally subject to the life interest of his wife. The first defendant was residing separately since 1982. It is contended that the plaintiffs contributed their hard earned money for construction of the building in the property in question. The second plaintiff was deserted by her husband and she is residing with her children along with the first plaintiff. The first defendant was appointed as the executor of the said Will. In the month of December, 1999, M.C.Raju (hereinafter referred to as ‘the testator’) fell from the staircase, as a result of which, his left hip joint was dislocated. He was under treatment of a Masseur. In the last week of December, 1999, he was totally bed ridden and was unable to take care of himself. On 24.12.1999, the first defendant came to the plaintiffs house and took the testator on the pretext of providing him medical treatment and got executed the Will dated 24.12.1999 by playing fraud. The testator was seriously ill and was not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the said Will. He did not know how to read and write Kannada. The first defendant got executed the said Will in Kannada language with an ulterior motive to knock-off the entire property. Subsequently, the first defendant brought back the testator to the plaintiffs’ house. On 8.2.2000, the testator passed away. It is contended that the Will dated 24.12.1999 is a fabricated document created by the first defendant, which came to her knowledge through her tenants. Immediately, the first plaintiff sent a legal notice to the first defendant dated 13.4.2000. Though the first defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same, he did not send a reply. It is contended that the Will dated 24.12.1999 is a fabricated document created by the first defendant, which came to her knowledge through her tenants. Immediately, the first plaintiff sent a legal notice to the first defendant dated 13.4.2000. Though the first defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same, he did not send a reply. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed the above suit for a declaration that the Will dated 24.12.1999 executed by the testator registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, is null and void and not binding on them. 3. The first defendant has filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. He has denied the execution of the Will dated 16.4.1999 by the testator bequeathing life interest in favour of the first plaintiff. It is contended that the testator being the absolute owner of the property, has rightly cancelled the Will dated 16.4.1999 and has executed the last Will dated 24.12.1999. He has denied that the plaintiffs have contributed funds for construction of the building in the property in question as they do not have any source of income. He has denied that in the month of December 1999, his father fell from the staircase, as a result of which, his left hip joint was dislocated and that he was under treatment of a Masseur. He has also denied that in the last week of December, 1999, the testator was bed ridden and unable to take care of himself. It is denied that on 24.12.1999 he went to the house of the plaintiffs and took the testator in the pretext of providing him medical treatment. It is contended that the Will executed by the testator dated 24.12.1999 was by his free will and consent. As per the Will dated 24.12.1999, except him no other person or persons are entitled to succeed to the estate of the testator. He has sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below has framed the following issues: “(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Will dated 24.12.1999 executed by late M.C.Raju in favour of the first defendant is obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as alleged in paras 10 to 13 of the plaint? (2) Whether the first defendant proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property as per the Will dated 24.12.1999? (2) Whether the first defendant proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property as per the Will dated 24.12.1999? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as sought for? (4) To what order or decree?” 5. The first plaintiff got herself examined as P.W1 and second plaintiff as P.W2 and a witness by name, K.P.Das was examined as P.W3. Documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 have been marked in their evidence. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant got himself examined as D.W1, the second defendant as D.W2 and two witnesses, namely, Manohar S. and Nagaraj were examined as D.W3 and D.W4. Documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D65 have been marked in their evidence. The court below on appreciation of the materials on record has decreed the suit. 6. I have heard Sri S.R.Sundar Ram, learned Counsel appearing for the first defendant/appellant and Sri V.Prabhakar, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that Ex.P.2 Will dated 24.12.1999 executed by the testator in favour of the first defendant was out of his own volition. The appellant was not aware of the execution of the said Will. It is only after the death of his father, he came to know the execution of the said Will. It is further argued that the first defendant has established that the execution of the said Will was not on account of undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. The plaintiffs have failed to establish that there exists any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will. It is further argued that the judgment and decree passed by the court below suffers from inherent contradictions. The court below on the one hand has held that plaintiffs have not been able to prove that Ex.P.2 Will is executed by misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence but at the same time, it has held that the Will might have been executed under suspicious circumstances. Learned Counsel has taken me through the pleadings, the evidence of the parties, the documents marked in evidence as also the judgment and decree impugned herein. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the testator had executed Ex.P.1 Will bequeathing life interest in the property in question in favour of the first plaintiff on 16.4.1999. 8. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the testator had executed Ex.P.1 Will bequeathing life interest in the property in question in favour of the first plaintiff on 16.4.1999. The first plaintiff was therefore, entitled to reside in the said property, collect rents from the tenants to meet the expenditure of the family comprising of herself, the second plaintiff and her children. However, she was not permitted to alienate or create any charge over the said property. On her death, the property will devolve upon here three surviving children, namely, the second plaintiff and the defendants in equal shares. In the first week of December, 1999, the testator fell down from the staircase, as a result of which, his left hip joint was dislocated. He was treated by the Doctor. However, on 24.12.1999, the first defendant came to the house of the first plaintiff and took the testator assuring the plaintiffs that he will take care of his father by providing him proper medical treatment. Instead of doing that, he got executed Ex.P2 Will fraudulently on the same day. The testator was seriously ill and was not in a position to understand as to what he was doing. It is further argued that the second plaintiff and the defendants have paid Rs.10,000/-each to the testator for payment of balance of consideration for purchase of the site in question, which is admitted by the second defendant, in her evidence. It is further argued that having regard to the facts and circumstances, he ought to have examined the scribe. He further submits that mere registration of the Will does not prove its genuineness. The testator executed Ex.P2 – Will on 24.12.1999 and he died on 8.2.2000. Though Ex.P2 contains the signature of the testator, the signatures on each page of the Will do not tally with each other. The script was not read over to him either by the scribe or by the Sub-Registrar. It is further contended that defendant No.1 has taken active role in getting Ex.P2-Will executed in his favour. It was not executed by the testator out of his own volition. It is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. On proper appreciation of the materials on record, the court below has decreed the suit. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. It is further contended that defendant No.1 has taken active role in getting Ex.P2-Will executed in his favour. It was not executed by the testator out of his own volition. It is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. On proper appreciation of the materials on record, the court below has decreed the suit. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. It is not in dispute that under Ex.P.1 Will dated 16.4.1999, the testator had bequeathed his properties in favour of his children (plaintiff No.2 and the defendants) equally subject to the life interest of his wife (plaintiff No.1). There is no dispute as to the execution of the second Will (Ex.P.2) dated 24.12.1999, bequeathing the entire suit properties belonging to him in favour of his son, the defendant No.1, subject to payment of Rupees one lakhs each to the 1st plaintiff and 2nd defendant and Rupees Two lakhs to the 2nd plaintiff. The testator died on 8.2.2000. In the impugned judgment, the court below has pointed out at least ten suspicious circumstances surrounding Ex.P.2 – Will. Therefore, it has decreed the suit. Having regard to the rival contentions of the parties, the question for consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether Ex.P.2 – Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances?” 10. A Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. The essential characteristic of a Will is that it is a mere declaration of an intention so long as the testator is alive, a declaration that may be revoked or varied according to the variations in his intention, a disposition which requires the testator’s death for its consummation. Section 61 Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) states that a Will or any part of a Will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by such importunity which takes away the free agency of the testator is void. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in Section 63 of the Act. 11. In H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in Section 63 of the Act. 11. In H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR VS. B.N.THIMMAJAMMA - AIR 1959 SC 443 , the Apex Court has held that a Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed by section 63 of the Act. The test applied would be the usual test of satisfaction of the prudent mind in such case. It has been further held as under: “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 propounder’s 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 testator’s mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and the 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 the relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be result of the testator’s 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 such 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 a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud, or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas 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 is 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.” 12. In RANI PURNIMA DEBI & ANOTHER VS. In RANI PURNIMA DEBI & ANOTHER VS. KUMAR KHAGENDRA NARAYAN DEB & ANOTHER - AIR 1962 SC 567 , the Apex Court has held that if a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. It has been further held as under: “But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeking the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the will was registered would not be of much value. Registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering.” (emphasis supplied by me) 13. In Smt. INDU BALA BOSE AND OTHERS VS. MANINDRA CHANDRA BOSE & ANOTHER - AIR 1982 SC 133 , the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testatmentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient. Where however, there are 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. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court by completely removing all legitimate suspicious. Where however, there are 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. Even where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court by completely removing all legitimate suspicious. A circumstance would be ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or it is normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person. 14. In KALYAN SINGH VS. SMT.CHHOTI AND OTHERS - AIR 1990 SC 396 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the propounder of the Will has to remove suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record. It is further held as under: “A will is one of the most solemn documents known to law. The executant of the will cannot be called to deny the execution or to explain the circumstances in which it was executed. It is, therefore, essential that trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence should be produced before the Court to establish genuineness and authenticity of the will. It must be stated that the factum of execution and validity of the will cannot be determined merely by considering the evidence produced by the propounder. In order to judge the credibility of witnesses and disengage the truth from falsehood the Court is not confined only to their testimony and demeanour. It would be open to the Court to consider circumstances brought out in the evidence or which appear from the nature and contents of the documents itself. It would be also open to the Court to look into surrounding circumstances as well as inherent improbabilities of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party.” (emphasis supplied by me) 15. In RAM PIARY VS. BHAGWAT ( AIR 1990 SC 1742 ), the Apex Court was considering the effect of denying the benefit under the Will by testator to those, who were to be the beneficiaries of his disposition. In RAM PIARY VS. BHAGWAT ( AIR 1990 SC 1742 ), the Apex Court was considering the effect of denying the benefit under the Will by testator to those, who were to be the beneficiaries of his disposition. It has held as under: “Where the testator, a father executed a Will bequeathing all his property in favour of sons of one daughter and disinherited the other daughter who had no sore or sour relations with testator and it was found that even though the testator could sign yet he put his thumb mark on Will and the professional scribe fetched by beneficiary’s father admitted that when he reached beneficiary’s residence where the Will was executed he found testator covered with quilt with whom he did not talk nor enquire about his health, the finding as to genuiness of Will recorded by the Court by erroneous application of principle of law could be interfered with under Art. 136. Anxiety in village to protect landed property or agricultural holdings from going out of family is well known. Even though it cannot be said to be hard and fast rule yet when disinheritance is amongst heirs of equal degree and no reason for exclusion is disclosed, then the standard of scrutiny is not the same and if the Courts failed to be alive to it then their orders cannot be said to be beyond review.” 16. In VIRUPAKSHAPPA MALLESHAPPA AND OTHERS VS. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI AND OTHERS (ILR 2002 KAR 1963), a Division Bench of this Court held that when the evidence of attesting witness is unworthy of acceptance and when at more than one place there are misstatement of facts, it was necessary on the part of the propounder to have examined the scribe. 17. In JOSEPH ANTHONY LAZARUS (D) BY L.Rs. VS. A.J. FRANCIS - AIR 2006 SC 1895 , the Honourable Supreme Court was considering the case of a testatorix bequeathing the property to her two sons only though she had four sons. There was no mention of her two other sons in the Will. She was of the advanced age living with one of the two beneficiaries. The propounders of the Will did not examine the Advocate who drafted the Will. There was no mention of her two other sons in the Will. She was of the advanced age living with one of the two beneficiaries. The propounders of the Will did not examine the Advocate who drafted the Will. The Court held that the cumulative effect of all the circumstances taken together gives rise to a genuine doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will and as to whether the same had in fact been executed by the testatrix and if so of her own volition. 18. In GURUDEV KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. KAKI AND OTHERS - AIR 2006 SC 1975 , the Apex Court has held as under: “The Court does not sit in appeal over the right or wrong of the testator’s decision. The Court’s role is limited to examining whether the instrument propounded as the last Will of the deceased is or is not that by the testator and whether it is the product of the free and sound disposing mind. It is only for the purpose of examining the authenticity or otherwise of the instrument propounded as the last Will, that the Court looks into the nature of the bequest. The contents of the Will have to be appreciated in the context of the circumstances, and not vis-à-vis the rules for intestate succession. It is only for this limited purpose that the Court examines the nature of the bequest. The Court does not substitute its own opinion for what was testator’s Will or intention as manifested from a reading of the written instrument. After all, a Will is meant to be an expression of his desire and, therefore, may result in disinheritance of some and grant to another.” 19. The legal principles deducible from the aforesaid decisions are that generally a propounder of the Will has to prove the due and valid execution of the Will. 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. Every circumstance is not a ‘suspicious circumstance’. The circumstance would be ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected by a normal person. Every circumstance is not a ‘suspicious circumstance’. The circumstance would be ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected by a normal person. 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 point of time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. The mere fact that the Will is registered will not by itself is sufficient to dispel the suspicion regarding it. If the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much use. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will, which may confer on him substantial benefit, that is also treated as a suspicious circumstance attaching to the execution of the Will. If the testator denies the benefit under the Will to those who were the beneficiaries of his disposition also gives rise to a genuine doubt regarding the genuineness of the Will. Ultimately, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court by completely removing all legitimate suspicions. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court would have to give effect to the Will even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense it has cut off wholly or in part near relations because a Will is nothing but an expression of the desire of the testator and therefore, may result in disinheritance of some and grant to another. 20. Keeping in mind the above legal principles, let me examine as to whether Ex.P2-Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. As has been stated earlier, the testator had executed Ex.P1-Will dated 16.4.1999 bequeathing his property in favour of his son (defendant No.1) and two daughters (plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2) equally subject to the life interest of his wife. 20. Keeping in mind the above legal principles, let me examine as to whether Ex.P2-Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. As has been stated earlier, the testator had executed Ex.P1-Will dated 16.4.1999 bequeathing his property in favour of his son (defendant No.1) and two daughters (plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2) equally subject to the life interest of his wife. The property bequeathed is a valuable immovable property bearing No.1/A, 3rd Cross, 2nd Main, Bapujinagar, Bangalore, consisting of a residential premises and some shops let out to tenants. The second plaintiff is residing along with the first plaintiff and her children in the residential portion of the property. The first plaintiff was permitted to collect rents from the tenants to meet the expenditure of the family. The second daughter of the testator (2nd defendant) is residing in the State of Bihar with her family. The first defendant was married in the year 1988 and has been staying separately along with his wife since 1989 in his father-in-law’s house. The wife of the testator (first plaintiff) was aged 65 years at the time of execution of Ex.P1 in the year 1999. However, by a subsequent Will at Ex.P2 dated 24.12.1999, the entire property has been bequeathed in favour of defendant No.1 subject to payment of certain amount to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. One of the condition in Ex.P2 is that the plaintiffs have to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the residential portion of the property within six months from the date of death of the testator. Thus, the testator has denied the benefit to the plaintiffs under the second Will. It is true that the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the testator. However, while examining the genuineness of the Will, this is also one of the circumstance, which has to be borne in mind. 21. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in the last week of December, 1999, the testator fell down from the staircase as a result of which his left hip joint was dislocated and he was under the treatment of a Masseur. During the last week of December, 1999, he was totally bed ridden and unable to take care of himself. On 24.12.1999, the first defendant took the testator assuring that he will provide medical treatment to the testator and fraudulently got executed Ex.P2-Will. During the last week of December, 1999, he was totally bed ridden and unable to take care of himself. On 24.12.1999, the first defendant took the testator assuring that he will provide medical treatment to the testator and fraudulently got executed Ex.P2-Will. The first defendant has denied the aforesaid averments in the plaint. 22. The first plaintiff was examined as P.W1. In her examination-in-chief, she has reiterated the plaint averments. In her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion that the testator had not fallen from the staircase. The second plaintiff in her evidence as P.W2 has stated that the testator fell down from the staircase resulting in dislocation of his hip joint in the month of December, 1999 and he was under treatment of a Masseur. In the last week of December, 1999, his movement became nil and on 24.12.1999, the 1st defendant took him on the pretext of giving him medical treatment. P.W3 is one of the tenants in shop premises of the property in question belonging to the testator. He has stated in unequivocal terms that he saw the testator falling down from the staircase, and that he informed the same to the plaintiffs. He had accompanied the plaintiffs when they took him to the Doctor. He has further stated that the health of the testator had deteriorated. His right eye sight was poor and he could not recognise things. As he was aged, he had hearing problem. D.W1 in his evidence has stated that on 29.12.1999, his father fell from the staircase as a result of which his left hip was fractured. On 31.12.1999, he took the testator to an ‘Ayurvedic Doctor’. In his cross-examination, he admits that his father was suffering from asthama. He further admits that his father was aged 80 years in 1999. Defendant No.2, another daughter of testator was examined ad D.W2. Though she had not filed written statement, she was examined by defendant No.1. Her evidence is completely opposed to the case set up by defendant No.1-the propounder of the Will. In her evidence, she has stated that she was aware of her father falling from the staircase in the first week of December, 1999. She further admits that herself and plaintiff No.2 had lodged police complaint against the first defendant. Her evidence is completely opposed to the case set up by defendant No.1-the propounder of the Will. In her evidence, she has stated that she was aware of her father falling from the staircase in the first week of December, 1999. She further admits that herself and plaintiff No.2 had lodged police complaint against the first defendant. It is clear from the evidence on record that the testator had fallen down from the staircase in the first week of December, 1999 itself. His health had deteriorated thereafter and the first defendant took him assuring the plaintiffs that he will provide medical treatment. 23. The next question for consideration is whether Ex.P2 was executed by the testator was on this own volition? D.W1 admits that his father never resided with him. He further admits that his father did not know how to read and write in any language. The testator died on 8.2.2000. D.W1 further states that he received a copy of the Will from one Jagadeeshachari on 13.3.2000, and came to know the execution of Ex.P2-Will. D.W2 has admitted in his evidence that D.W1 had informed her of execution of Ex.P2-Will dated 24.12.1999. D.W4 was the attesting witness of Ex.P2. In his chief examination, he has stated that on 20.12.1999, the testator contacted him and requested him to be a witness to Ex.P2. He agreed for the same. On 24.12.1999, the testator came to his house at about 10 a.m. Himself and the testator went to the Sub-Registrar’s office. S.L.Muralidhar and K.V.Venkatagiriyappa were also present at the time of execution of the Will. Venkatagiriyappa read and explained the Will to the testator. He has further stated that he was not the attestor of the Will. Venkatagiriyappa had drafted the Will. He admits that the testator did not know how to read and write in Kannada or English languages. 24. The first defendant has produced documents Ex.D9 to Ex.D49 consisting of x-ray reports and bills for having purchased medicines. All these documents are dated subsequent to the date of execution of Ex.P2 -Will dated 24.12.1999. It is also evident from the materials on record that the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 had lodged a complaint dated 3.6.2002 against defendant No.1 stating that defendant No.1 has taken the medical reports of the testator. All these documents are dated subsequent to the date of execution of Ex.P2 -Will dated 24.12.1999. It is also evident from the materials on record that the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 had lodged a complaint dated 3.6.2002 against defendant No.1 stating that defendant No.1 has taken the medical reports of the testator. Ex.D12 dated 1.1.2000 is the certificate issued by Joshi Nursing Home opining that the testator has suffered fracture of greater trochanter. The first defendant has not examined the Doctor in order to establish the probable date of the fracture suffered by the testator. 25. Defendant No.2 (D.W2) has further stated that her mother was taking care of the testator. Since the first defendant was residing separately, he was not taking care of her father. She has further stated that the first defendant, who is none other than her brother has informed her about the execution of Ex.P2 Will dated 24.12.1999. In this background, the evidence of D.W4 that the testator was hale and healthy does not hold water. According to him, he had come to the house of the testator on 30.12.1999 and came to know that the testator had fallen from the staircase and suffered fracture is not probable in the circumstances of the case. D.W2 has made it clear that her mother was looking after her father. Therefore, the statement made in the Will that plaintiffs were not looking after the testator does not seem to be correct. In the evidence, D.W1 states that he took his father to Joshi Nurisng Home on 31.12.1999, whereas the certificate at Ex.D12 shows that he was taken to the Nursing Home on 1.1.2000. The testator had executed an agreement Ex.P12 in the year 1984 agreeing to execute and register a document in respect of the property in question in favour of the first plaintiff. The plaintiff No.2 and both the defendants have signed Ex.P12, the agreement as consenting parties. Therefore, in furtherance of the said document, the testator must have executed Ex.P1 Will dated 16.4.1999 bequeathing life interest in favour of the first plaintiff. 26. It is also evident that the scribe of Ex.P2 was not examined by the propounder of the Will. It is an admitted fact that the signature of the testator in each page of Ex.P2 are different. 26. It is also evident that the scribe of Ex.P2 was not examined by the propounder of the Will. It is an admitted fact that the signature of the testator in each page of Ex.P2 are different. In this connection, D.W1 states in his cross-examination that “it is true that the signature in each page are different as the hands of my father was shaking”. This admission shows that D.W1 was present at the time of execution of the Will. From the materials on record, it is clear that he has taken prominent part in execution of the Will, which has conferred on him the substantial benefit. It is an admitted fact that the testator did not know how to read and write in Kannada and the Will was written in Kannada language. The Sub-Registrar, who took the signature of the testator being a material witness has not been examined. No reasons are assigned for not examining the Sub-Registrar. D.W4 is the only attesting witness examined in this case. He admits in his cross-examination that the Sub-Registrar did not read the contents of the Will to the deceased, but he asked him whether he knows the contents of the Will for which the deceased asked him to read the Will when it came in contact with the testator. The evidence of D.W4 shows that the testator has signed the Will without understanding the contents therein. Merely because a Will is registered will not by itself is sufficient to dispel all the suspicions regarding it, unless it is established that the testator knew that it was a Will, the execution of which he was admitting. The registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. It is also an admitted fact that the first plaintiff had issued a notice as per Ex.P4 to the defendant dated 13.4.2000 stating that she has every reason to doubt as to the genuiness of Ex.P2 Will dated 24.12.1999. The first defendant has not replied the said notice. 27. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances taken together give rise to a genuine doubt regarding the genuineness of Ex.P2 Will and as to whether the same had in fact been executed by the testator of his own volition. The first defendant has not replied the said notice. 27. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances taken together give rise to a genuine doubt regarding the genuineness of Ex.P2 Will and as to whether the same had in fact been executed by the testator of his own volition. The court below has not only taken into account the aforesaid suspicious circumstances but also various other suspicious circumstances in order to come to a conclusion that the Will in question is not a genuine document. Having perused the entire material on record, I am of the view that the propounder of Ex.P2-Will has failed to remove the ligitimate suspicions surrounding the Will. The findings recorded by the court below are on proper appreciation of the materials on record and there is no perversity, illegality or irregularity whatsoever in those findings. 28. There is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Draw the decree accordingly.