JUDGMENT V.K. Jain, J.- This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration with respect to the estate of Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, who expired on 2.5.2001. It has been alleged in the petition that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma had executed his last Will on 30.10.2000 which was registered with Sub-Registrar, Delhi on the same date. The particulars of his estate are given in Annexure 'C' to the petition. 2. The petitioner is the daughter of Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, born from his first wife. Mrs. Asha R. Sharma, third wife of the deceased is his other class one legal heir. No other legal heir was left by the deceased. 3. Objections have been filed by Smt. Asha R. Sharma primarily on the grounds that the Will set up by the petitioner was not executed by Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and that he was not in a sound disposing mind at the time this will is alleged to have been executed. 4. The following issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties: (i) Whether Shri Ram Chander Sharma executed Will and Testament dated 30.10.2000? -OPP If issue No.1 is decided in the affirmative- (ii) Whether Shri Ram Chander Sharma was not in sound disposing mind to execute such a Will? -OPD Issue Nos. land 2: 5. Both these issues are inter connected and can be conveniently decided together. The petitioner has produced five witnesses including herself in support of her case. The objector has produced two witnesses including herself. 6. The Will set up by the petitioner is Ex. PW 2/1 and purports to have been executed in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Amrit Lal Ahluwalia and Rajni Bhatia. Mr. Amrit Lal Ahluwalia died on 6.11.2002 whereas Smt. Rajni Bhatia has come in the witness box as PW 2. In her affidavit Ms. Rajni Bhatia stated that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma being the father of her friend petitioner Madhwi Sharma, was known to her and had requested him to be an attesting witness to his last Will and testament on 30.10.2000. She went to the office of Sub-Registrar at Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi where the deceased was present along with Sh. Amrit Lal Ahluwalia, father-in-law of the petitioner and his son Sh. Anoop Ahluwalia. She went to the office of Sub-Registrar at Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi where the deceased was present along with Sh. Amrit Lal Ahluwalia, father-in-law of the petitioner and his son Sh. Anoop Ahluwalia. On the request of the deceased testator, she signed as one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. She also saw Mr. Ram Chander Sharma appending his signature on each page of this Will. Sh. Amrit Lal Ahluwalia, resident of 2181/62, Karol Bagh, New Delhi who is the other attesting witness of the Will was present at that time. She further stated that she and Amrit Lal Ahluwalia had also signed the Will in the presence of each other and in the presence of the testator, on that date. 7. PW 3 Anup Ahluwalia is the son of late Shri Amrit Lal Ahluwalia and brother-in-law of the petitioner. He has stated that on 30.10.2000 he also had accompanied his father to the office of Sub-Registrar at Vikas Sad an, INA, New Delhi. He has identified the signature of his father Sh. Amrit Lal Ahluwalia on the Will Ex. PW 2/1. 8. PW 4 Dr. Vinod Sharma has stated that late Sh. Ram Chander used to consult him and the certificate Ex. PW 4/1 was given by him on 23.10.2000. According to him, the deceased had consulted him in the year 1995-96 when he was admitted in National Heart Institute, East of Kailash, New Delhi. He stated that Mr. Ram Chander Sharma was in perfect mental condition when he examined him in October, 1996 and gave this certificate. He also stated that to his knowledge, the deceased was not suffering from liver cirrhosis. He has also proved the certificate Ex. PW 4/2 issued by him on 20.11.2000. According to him the certificate Ex. PW 4/2 was given on the request of Mr. Ram Chander Sharma, who wanted him to certify recovery from his initial illness, so that he could resume his business responsibilities. Since his condition was not such as to permit him to attend his responsibility, this certificate was issued by him. 9. PW 5 Mr. S. Seshadri is an official from the office of Sub-Registrar and he has proved the registration of the Will Ex. PW 2/1. He, however, was not involved in the Registration of this document. Since his condition was not such as to permit him to attend his responsibility, this certificate was issued by him. 9. PW 5 Mr. S. Seshadri is an official from the office of Sub-Registrar and he has proved the registration of the Will Ex. PW 2/1. He, however, was not involved in the Registration of this document. The petitioner who came in the witness-box as PW 1 stated in her affidavit that the objector had deserted the deceased Ram Chander in the year 1984 and was constantly pressurising him over money and his estate. She also stated that she was residing with the deceased at the time of his death. 10. The Objector who came in the witness box as OW 1 stated in her affidavit that till the year 1984 Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma used to reside with her in Mumbai in the year 1984. One of his companies went bankrupt and, therefore, he came to Delhi so as to shield himself from the creditors. She, however, continued to have cordial relations with him even while living in Mumbai. She also stated that since late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was a serious alcoholic for a long time and was suffering from a number of problems such as blood pressure, heart problem and loss of memory, he was not in a perfect state of mind and was not able to recollect and answer the questions. She also stated that her husband had never executed any Will and there was no occasion for him to oust her from his huge estate. She also claimed that the Will set up by the petitioner was a fabricated document obtained by playing fraud upon the deceased. 11. OW 2 Smt. Chandrika Vasudeva stated that she was a family friend of Late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and whenever he visited Delhi he used to come and meet her. She further stated that he was a severe alcoholic and had developed several diseases. She claimed that the alcoholism of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma had affected his rationality and he was suffering from a number of problems such as blood pressure, heart problem and other diseases. 12. The Will dated 30th October, 2000 was registered with the Sub-Registrar on the same date and bears a photograph of the executant. She claimed that the alcoholism of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma had affected his rationality and he was suffering from a number of problems such as blood pressure, heart problem and other diseases. 12. The Will dated 30th October, 2000 was registered with the Sub-Registrar on the same date and bears a photograph of the executant. This is not the case of the Objector that the photograph, affixed on the Will, is not of late Shri Ram Chander Sharma and is of some other person. This is also not the case of the Objector that some other person had impersonated as Shri Ram Chander Sharma before the Sub-Registrar on 30th October, 2000. This is also not her case that the signatures of the Testator on the Will are not the genuine signature of late Shri Ram Chander Sharma and have been forged. In her deposition, the Objector did not dispute either the photograph or the signature of the executant of the Will. It, therefore, cannot be disputed that the Will bears the photographs as well as the signature of late Shri Ram Chander Sharma. It is true that there is no difference between a registered Will and an unregistered Will so far as their genuineness and authenticity are concerned but it is equally true that a registered Will stands on a better footing than an unregistered Will inasmuch as about a registered Will it is taken that it was the act of a testator of a sound disposing mind. About an unregistered Will, it is not taken that it was the act of a testator of sound disposing mind. 13. The burden of proving that the Will was validly executed and is a genuine document is no doubt on the propounder of the Will. He is required to prove that the Testator had signed the Will and had put his signature out or his own free Will. He is also required to prove that the Testator, at the time of execution of the Will, had a sound disposition of mind and was in a position to understand the nature and effect of what he was doing. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is produced by the propounder of the Will, the onus cast on him stands duly discharged. 14. If sufficient evidence in this behalf is produced by the propounder of the Will, the onus cast on him stands duly discharged. 14. The execution of an unprivileged Will is Government by Section 63 of Indian Succession Act which, to the extent it is relevant, provides that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the Testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the Testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. Section 68 of Evidence Act, to the extent, it is relevant, provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Since the Will is a document required by law to be attested by at least two witnesses, the petitioner could have proved it by producing one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. 15. In the present case, the petitioner has discharged the onus place upon her by examining one of the attesting witnesses Smt. Rajni Bhatia. The testimony of this witness could not be impeached during her cross-examination. She was well known to the Testator she being a friend of the petitioner. But, her friendship with the petitioner that by itself and without anything more, does not affect her credibility as a witness. During her cross-examination, no suggestion was given to her that she had not accompanied late Shri Ram Chander Sharma to the office of Sub-Registrar on 30th October, 2000. In fact, no suggestion was given to her that late Shri Ram Chander Sharma was disoriented or was not in a disposing state of mind on that date. During her cross-examination, no suggestion was given to her that she had not accompanied late Shri Ram Chander Sharma to the office of Sub-Registrar on 30th October, 2000. In fact, no suggestion was given to her that late Shri Ram Chander Sharma was disoriented or was not in a disposing state of mind on that date. Moreover, the signatures of this witness were also obtained by the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the Will as per the standard practice adopted by such offices. The execution of the Will thus has been duly proved by the petitioner. 16. The second attesting witness Shri Amrit Lal Ahluwalia having died, it was not possible for the petitioner to produce her in the witness box. His signature, however, have been identified by his son Shri Anup Ahluwalia who also had accompanied him and the Testator to the office of Sub-Registrar on that date. It is true that both late Shri Amrit Lal Ahluwalia as well as his son Shri Anup Ahluwalia are related to the petitioner. But, neither attestation by Shri Amrit Lal Ahluwalia nor the deposition of Shri Anup Ahluwalia can be rejected merely on account of their relationship with the petitioner. It is not unusual for a person executing a Will to request his friends and/or relatives to be attesting witnesses to his Will. Normally, one does not ask an outsider to be an attesting wih1ess to his Will, execution of the Will being a family matter, which one normally would not like to share with the outsiders. He looks for the relatives and/or friends who are readily available and are willing to spend time to witness the execution of his Will and in case he proposes to get the Will registered, also to spare time to accompany him to the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. 17. Another requirement of law is that if there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, the onus is on the propounder to explain those circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court, before the Will is accepted as a genuine document. 17. Another requirement of law is that if there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of a Will, the onus is on the propounder to explain those circumstances to the satisfaction of the Court, before the Will is accepted as a genuine document. The suspicious circumstances may be many such as (i) the signature of the Testator may be shaky and doubtful or different from his usual signatures; (ii) the mental condition of the Testator may be feeble and debilitated at the time of the execution of the Will; (iii) the disposition may be such as is found to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, such as exclusion of natural heirs without any reason; (iv) the propounder may take a prominent part in the execution of the Will; (v) the Will may not see the light of the day for long time; (vi) the Will may contain incorrect recital of essential facts. Of course, the suspicious circumstances, alleged by a person who disputes the genuineness of the Will, ought to be real and germane and not the imagination of a doubting mind amounting to conjecture or mistrust. 18. It is also a settled proposition of law, fraud, coercion or undue influence is alleged in execution of a Will, the burden of proving the same would be on the person by whom such a plea is set up (Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, I (2002) SLT 137= (2002) 2 SCC 85 ; Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors., II (2005) SLT 38=1 (2005) CLT 162 (SC)= (2005) 2 SCC 784 ). 19. It was observed by Supreme Court in Bharpur Singh and Ors. v. Shamsher Singh, (2009) 3 SCC 687 , that though deprivation of due share to the natural heirs by itself may not be a suspicious circumstance, it is one of the factors which is taken into consideration by the Courts before granting probate of a Will. 20. In the case before this Court, the Objector being the wife of late Shri Ram Chander Sharma was one of his natural heirs and, therefore her complete exclusion from the estate of the deceased may be a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will unless it is shown that there were reasons for the late Testator of the Will to exclude her from his estate. The Courts need to appreciate that the purpose behind execution of a Will is to alter the ordinary mode of succession and, therefore normally it does result in either reducing the share of one or more natural heirs or depriving them of any share in the estate of the deceased. If a person wants to give his property to his legal heirs in equal shares, there is no necessity for him to execute a Will, since in the absence of a Will, the property would be equally divided amongst all his legal heirs. 21. It was observed by Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee & Anr. v. Panchanan Banerjee (dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 459 , that circumstances of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and, therefore, the natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, in some cases, they may be fully debarred, whereas in some cases, debarring may be partial. In Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan (Dead), III (2004) SLT 754=II (2004) CLT 303 (SC)= (2004) 2 SCC 321 , Supreme Court was of the view that mere depriving the natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. 22. Once it is found that the propounder of the Will has succeeded in removing the suspicious circumstances, the Court is required to give full effect to the Will even if it appears to be unnatural in the sense that it either excludes one or more legal heirs from the estate of the deceased or reduces the share which they would otherwise have got in the absence of a Will. 23. An endorsement made at point 'H' on the Will Ex. PW 2/1, in the office of Sub-Registrar, indicates presence of the petitioner at the time of registration, though it has been denied by the attesting witness. It was observed by Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. 23. An endorsement made at point 'H' on the Will Ex. PW 2/1, in the office of Sub-Registrar, indicates presence of the petitioner at the time of registration, though it has been denied by the attesting witness. It was observed by Supreme Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana and Ors. v. Pentakota Seetharatnam and Ors., VII (2005) SLT 423=II (2005) DMC 669 (SC)=IV (2006) CLT 218 (SC)=(2005) 8 SCC 67, that even active participation by the propounder/beneficiary in the execution of the Will by itself is not sufficient to create doubt either about the testamentary capacity or the genuineness of the Will. Mere presence of beneficiary at the time of execution would not prove that he had taken a prominent part in execution of the Will [Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors., II (2005) SLT 38=I (2005) CLT 162 (SC)= (2005) 2 SCC 784 ]. 24. The first question which comes up for consideration in this case is as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case disclose a good reason for late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma to exclude his third wife, the objector Smt. Asha Sharma, from his estate. It is an admitted case that 1984 onwards late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was residing in Delhi whereas the objector was residing was residing at Bombay in the flat in Usha Kiran. The reason given by the objector for late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma shifting to Delhi is that since one of his companies had become insolvent, he had fled from Bombay and shifted to Delhi in order to shield himself from the creditors. Nevertheless, the fact remains that 1984 onwards late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was living in Delhi whereas the objector continued to reside in the flat where they were living before the deceased shifted to Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that the relations between the deceased Ram Chander Sharma and the objector were far from cordial. 25. Ex. OW1/P1 is the copy of the complaint made before family Court at Bombay on 23rd April 2001, in the lifetime of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in this petition. The petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition. The document has been admitted by the objector in her cross-examination and, therefore, its authenticity is not in dispute. Ram Chander Sharma, who was impleaded as respondent No. 1 in this petition. The petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia was impleaded as respondent No. 2 in this petition. The document has been admitted by the objector in her cross-examination and, therefore, its authenticity is not in dispute. The objector inter alia alleged as under in the petition filed by her: "6(e) The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 was estranged from 1982. The respondent then handed over the suit flat to the petitioner for her exclusive use and occupation and left the suit premises and the petitioner forever. (d) The respondent No.1 after leaving the suit premises in 1983/84, has never visited the suit premises. (e) The petitioner has continued to reside in the suit premises exclusively since 1982. The petitioner was in hostile possession of the suit premises. The petitioner alone was in occupation, possession, control and charge of the suit premises. The petitioner alone has looked after all the affairs and management of the suit premises. The petitioner alone has only paid all society outgoings, society charges, repair charges and all other expenses relating to the suit premises since 1983/84. The anger of difficult business conditions and paucity of funds, the respondent No.1 poured out on the petitioner. This caused an extreme harassment and mental cruelty to the petitioner in his frustration. The respondent No.1 made extremely sarcastic remarks and stated that the petitioner had brought him bad luck and she was a cause of his downfall. The respondent No.1 exhibited a complete hostile and adverse attitude against the petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner's relationship with the respondent No. 1 deteriorated very fast and respondent No. 1 left Bombay in the year 1984. The respondent No.1 abandoned the petitioner totally leaving her in the suit flat without any financial support or means. Since 1984, i.e. 17 years ago, the respondent has not provided any type of financial support or maintenance leave alone whether petitioner was alive or dead. The respondent No.1 showed a total neglect and callous attitude towards the petitioner. All these years, the petitioner had to look after herself and maintain the suit flat and pay large sums towards flat outgoings and society charges and repair and maintain charges and all ailed expenses related to the suit flat. The respondent No.1 showed a total neglect and callous attitude towards the petitioner. All these years, the petitioner had to look after herself and maintain the suit flat and pay large sums towards flat outgoings and society charges and repair and maintain charges and all ailed expenses related to the suit flat. The respondent No.1 continued deserting the petitioner and the petitioner having no other option had to continue living abandoned and deserted life in the suit flat. In all these years of loneliness, the petitioner has carved a niche for herself, accepting the separation and has moulded her life accordingly. On 17.3.2001, the petitioners returning home at night, she was informed by her servant that the respondent No.1 had come to Bombay with his daughter respondent No.2. The petitioner solely has maintained the suit premises for all these years and his entering into suit premises with respondent No.2 without her permission and consent amounts to trespassing in the suit premises which is a criminal offence. The petitioner submits that the respondents have made petitioner's life totally miserable. The respondents are harassing and torturing the petitioner in every manner to make petitioner walk out of the suit premises. The respondents are therefore liable to vacate/remove themselves with their family members, relatives and servants and agents from entering into an remaining upon the suit premises. The petitioner is entitled to interim order to that effect. Prayer clause (a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents their family members, relatives and servants and agents by a mandatory and perpetual injunction from entering into and remaining upon the suit premises viz. Flat No. 34, in Usha Kiran Building, Car Micheal Road, Bombay-400 036. (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents, their family members, relatives and agents by an order of mandatory and permanent injunction from entering into and remaining upon the suit premises. 26. Ex. OW1/P2 is the complaint made by the objector Smt. Asha Sharma to Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai against late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and the petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia on 9th April 2001. This document has been admitted by the objector in her cross-examination. 26. Ex. OW1/P2 is the complaint made by the objector Smt. Asha Sharma to Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai against late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and the petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia on 9th April 2001. This document has been admitted by the objector in her cross-examination. In this complaint, Smt. Asha Sharma inter alia alleged as under: "The complainant states that opponent No.1 is the husband of complainant who has deserted the complainant for past about 18 years. Opponent No. 2 happens to be the daughter of opponent No. 1 through his first marriage. On 8.4.2001, at about 11.00 hrs. or so opponent No.1, brought his daughter, i.e., opponent No.2 along with three children and servants who had arrived from Delhi by Rajdhani Express, forcibly entered the premises despite the complainant objecting to them. Further, during the course of stay, these were arguments between complainant and the opponents." 27. Ex. OW-1/P3 is the copy of the complaint made by the Objector to N.C. Gamdevi Police Station on 7th April 2001. This document has also been admitted by the Objector in her cross-examination. In this complaint, she inter alias alleged as under: "The opponent No.1 left the complainant in 1984 and deserved her without any reasonable cause since then the complainant has been living separately. The complainant's only support was sheltered in Mumbai at 34, Usha Kiran, Carmihale Road, Mumbai, which happens to be a matrimonial home and where she has been residing alone for the past 18 years without any interruption with here belonging furniture fixtures and fittings. She alone is paying the outgoing for the above mentioned flat which is maintained by her. On 17.3.2001 at 17.30 hrs. or so both the opponents came from Delhi and pounced upon her at her flat in Mumbai, they further threatened that opponent No. 2 with her husband Mr. Atul Ahluwalia and her three children would come permanently to reside at the said flat. Ever since a device has been resorted to by opponent No. 1 in collusion with opponent No. 12 to harass in cause the complainant untold mental torture pinpricks and needling to the complainant in every conceivable way so that the complainant is compelled to leave the home for opponent Nos. 1 and 2. Both the opponents has got mala fide intentions towards the complainants and with their tactics complaint is likely to lose mental balance health. 1 and 2. Both the opponents has got mala fide intentions towards the complainants and with their tactics complaint is likely to lose mental balance health. The complainant apprehends danger to her life at the hands of opponents." 28. Ex. OW-1/P4 is the letter which the petitioner admittedly had written to all partners of Sharma Group. In this letter she inter alia alleged as under: "For 17 years, I have been supporting myself and continued to do so till date. I alone, have been maintain myself and all bills relating to 34 Usha Kiran which include structural repairs, maintenance, monthly outgoings, electricity and telephones bills which have been all paid by me from 1984. He and his daughter harassed me mentally and filed police complaints against me." 29. The aforesaid documentary evidence authored by none other than the Objector Smt. Asha Sharma leaves no doubt that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and the Objector Smt. Asha Sharma were living separately for about 17 years before late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma decided to shift back to Bombay, along with the petitioner who was his daughter. These documents also show that the relations between the Objector and late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma were far from cordial and were in fact extremely poor. These documents also indicate that the Objector Smt. Asha Sharma was aggrieved that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was not meeting her expenses and that it was she who was incurring all the expenditure in relation to her boarding and lodging including the maintenance of flat in Usha Kiran. The deterioration in the relationship had gone to such an extent that the Objector went not only to Police Station and lodged written complaint not only against the petitioner as well as against her husband, she also approached the family Court complaining trespass by them in Usha Kiran flat, despite that fact that the flat in Usha Kiran was provided to her by none other than late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and she had no right, title or interest in that flat. The extent of strain in the relationship of the Objector with late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma is evident from the fact that she did not hesitate to go public with her differences with the deceased and public ally disclosed them to all the partners of Sharma Group, with which the deceased was associated. The extent of strain in the relationship of the Objector with late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma is evident from the fact that she did not hesitate to go public with her differences with the deceased and public ally disclosed them to all the partners of Sharma Group, with which the deceased was associated. In the face of extreme hostility between the Objector and deceased, as exhibited in the petition in family Court Ex. OW-1/P1 complaints to police Ex. OW-1/P1 and P3 and the letter Ex. OW-1/P1, it is extremely difficult to dispute that there was no love lost between the Objector and the deceased. Though the documents Ex. OW1/P1 to OW1/P5 were written after execution of the Will on 30th November 2000, it is difficult to dispute that they exhibit the strained relations and hostilities between the Objector and the deceased, since 1984, when the deceased shifted to Delhi, and allegedly deserted the Objector. This is not the case of the Objector that her relations with the deceased got strained on account of the Will executed by her. Her case is that the Will Ex. PW2/1 was not executed by him at all. 30. The unhappiness of the deceased with the Objector is also evident from a Will Ex. OW1/P5, which late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma prepared when he was 55 years old, i.e. about 20 years before his death. In para 3 of this document, he recorded that he was not satisfied with the way of living of his wife Mrs. Asha Sharma, totally disapproved her way of living and was not desirous of giving her anything by way of Will. In the backdrop of the strained relationship and open hostility between the Objector and late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, it was quite natural on his part to exclude the Objector from his estate, particularly when he had not only a child, but also three grand-children. It would be unrealistic to expect the husband to bequeath even a part of his estate to his third wife, who had chosen to live separately from her husband for as many as 16 years instead of joining him to Delhi. Assuming that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was running away from his creditors on account of one of his companies having gone bankrupt, a loyal wife is not expected to leave her husband alone in such a time of distress and difficulty. Assuming that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was running away from his creditors on account of one of his companies having gone bankrupt, a loyal wife is not expected to leave her husband alone in such a time of distress and difficulty. She would rather prefer to live with her husband, wherever he decides to live and share all his difficulties and worries. The company of the wife is extremely important to the husband particularly when he is in difficulty and is going through a rough phase in his life. There can be no substitute for the emotional support, which the wife can give to him in such times. It is not as if there was some compulsion for the Objector to continue living in Bombay at the cost of leaving her husband in Delhi. The documentary evidence in the form of the petition filed before Family Court and the complaints made by the Objector to the police leave no doubt that it was on account of strained relationship between husband and wife and not on account of some compulsion of the Objector, that she was living in Mumbai. 31. The admissions made by the Objector in her cross-examination also show that she was financially well of and, therefore, could have managed very well without any financial support from the estate of her husband. In her cross-examination, the Objector has admitted that she owns half share in a commercial property at Mittal Court in Mumbai and 115th share in Worli, Mumbai. She also admitted that she has half share in a property measuring more than 1,000 sq. yds. in Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. She has also admitted that she was getting rental income from the aforesaid property. Though she declined to disclose her rental income from Vasant Vihar property, she claimed that she was earning a fair rental income from that house and that by fair amount, she meant about Rs. 2 lacs per month. She also admitted that she was realizing about 40,000-50,000/- rental income from other properties. Thus, it can hardly be disputed that the Objector owned substantial immovable property and was financially very well of. This, to my mind was another reason which would have compelled late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma to exclude her all together from his estate. She also admitted that she was realizing about 40,000-50,000/- rental income from other properties. Thus, it can hardly be disputed that the Objector owned substantial immovable property and was financially very well of. This, to my mind was another reason which would have compelled late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma to exclude her all together from his estate. If, the relationship between the husband and wife is extremely poor, inasmuch as that they are living separately for as many as 16-17 years and the deterioration in the relationship is to such as an extent that the wife does not hesitate in going to police as well as to the Court against her husband and she is otherwise very well off of having very large immovable properties and is getting substantial income by way of rent, the husband is not likely to leave any part of his estate to her. Such a person in the ordinary course of human conduct is definitely likely to give away all his properties to his child, to the complete exclusion of his wife. Therefore, there was nothing unusual in the deceased-testator excluding the Objector from his estate. 32. Coming to the mental disposition of the deceased, a perusal of the certificate Ex. PW4/1 which PW-4 Dr. Vinod Sharma had issued on 23rd October 2000 would show that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was in perfect mental condition at the time this certificate was issued. Dr. Vinod Sharma has come in the witness box as PW-4 and has stated that when he examined late Sh. Ram Sharma in October 2000, he was in perfect mental condition and was not mentally disoriented. He also stated that the deceased was not suffering from cirrhosis of liver. This is not the case of the Objector that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was not under treatment of Dr. Vinod Sharma and was not examined by him in October 2000 when the certificate was issued. In fact, the Objector herself has referred to another certificate issued by this very Doctor on 23rd October 2000 in para 12 of the objections filed by her. She herself has stated in the objections that the Dr. Vinod Sharma of National Heart Institute, New Delhi had given certificate on 23rd November 2000, that the deceased had developed depressive illness and memory defect and was not able to recollect and answer the question. She herself has stated in the objections that the Dr. Vinod Sharma of National Heart Institute, New Delhi had given certificate on 23rd November 2000, that the deceased had developed depressive illness and memory defect and was not able to recollect and answer the question. Therefore, there is no dispute as regard examination of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma by this witness and the genuineness of the certificate issued by him. 33. As regards the certificate Ex. PW4/2 relied upon by the Objector, Dr. Vinod Sharma stated that Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, who had recovered from his initial illness had come to him for a follow up. He was in a depressed state of mind due to chronic illness and some of his business stresses. He wanted him to issue certificate so that he could reassume his business responsibility in full-fledged way. However, since in his assessment, the general condition of Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was not such as to permit him to attend his responsibilities, he issued the certificate Ex. P4/D2 to him. Explaining the certificate, he stated that it meant that Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was not in perfect frame of mind due to underlying chronic illness and depressive psychosis. He also clarified that by emotionally liable, he meant the varying decree of emotional outburst or expressions. When he was asked as to whether it meant that the person was otherwise in proper frame of mind except this temporary or emotional outburst, he stated that this was just the emotional aspect which was very liable and exaggerated expression. However, the cognitive and analytical function of the brain remains intact. According to him, this emotional outburst and depressive psychosis was a temporary phase due to chronic illness. Later, when Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was admitted in the hospital in Mumbai the doctor wanted to perform brain surgery, this witness allowed them to go for high risk brain surgery, opining that it was worthwhile taking the risk. 34. In view of the deposition of Dr. Vinod Sharma, it cannot be disputed that at the time of Will was executed and got registered by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on 30th October 2000, he possessed requisite mental disposition and was in a position to understand and decide what he wanted to do with his estate. There is nothing on record to indicate that between 23rd October 2000 when late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on 30th October 2000, he possessed requisite mental disposition and was in a position to understand and decide what he wanted to do with his estate. There is nothing on record to indicate that between 23rd October 2000 when late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was examined by PW-4 Dr. Vinod Sharma and was found to be in perfect mental condition and 30th October 2000 when the Will Ex. PW2/1 was executed and got registered by him, the physical and/ or mental condition of the deceased had deteriorated to such an extent that he was not possessed of the requisite disposition of mind at the time the Will was executed by him. Assuming that at the time of execution of the Will on 30th October 2000, he continued to suffer from mental outburst or expressions, that by itself could not have prevented him or understanding the nature of what he was doing and making a rational decision with respect to bequest of the properties which were owned by him. The Will Ex. PW2/1 was executed and got registered on 30th October 2000, whereas late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma expired on 2nd May 2001. He, therefore, lived for more than six months after execution of the Will. It is an admitted case that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma died on account of fall while walking and not on account of the chronic ailments from which he was suffering. A perusal of the death summary of the deceased Ex. PW1/03 prepared by Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai shows that he was taken to hospital at about 5.20 p.m. on 11th April 2001 with history of fall. On admission, he was found to be conscious. In her cross-examination, the Objector Smt. Asha Sharma has stated that she was informed by the Marshal of the building that Mr. Ram Chander Sharma, while having an evening walk after drinking in the afternoon, had missed a step because the road was very uneven and had to be rushed to Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai. The very fact that Sh. Ram Chander Sharma decided to go for an evening walk in the afternoon indicates that he was mentally and physically stable at that time. Had he not been stable, he would not have gone on a walk. It is not as if he fell down on account of some ailment from which he was suffering. The very fact that Sh. Ram Chander Sharma decided to go for an evening walk in the afternoon indicates that he was mentally and physically stable at that time. Had he not been stable, he would not have gone on a walk. It is not as if he fell down on account of some ailment from which he was suffering. He fell down since he missed a step on account of the road being uneven. Therefore, it is difficult to say that at the time he fell down on 11th April 2001, he was disoriented or was mentally or physically unstable. 35. In her petition before family Court Ex. PW1/P1, the Objector herself claimed that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma, when he returned to Bombay on 17th March 2001, told her that he had come to live in Mumbai an asked her to make her arrangement to live in. She further alleged that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma asked her to get out of the premises and that they were harassing and torturing her in every manner and had made her life totally miserable. Had late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma not been in a fit state of health or mind, there could have been no question of his harassing and torturing the Objector and making her life miserable. In the complaint Ex. PW1/P2 made to the police on 9th April 2001, she alleged that there was argument between her and on one hand and Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and Madhavi Ahluwalia on the other hand. This allegation indicates that the mental faculties of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma were normal at the time of the alleged arguments on 8th April 2001. In the complaint made to the police on 7th April 2001, the Objector alleged that on 17th March 2001 at about 5.30 p.m. late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma and Ms. Madhavi Ahluwalia pounced upon her and threatened her. She also alleged that by mental torture and pin-pricks and needling they had brought untold mental torture to her and she apprehended danger to her life at their hands. Obviously such allegations are not made against a person, who is disoriented or his not in a fit state of health and/or mind. 36. The learned Counsel for the Objector has drawn my attention to the discharge summary Ex. PW4/03 prepared at the time late Sh. Obviously such allegations are not made against a person, who is disoriented or his not in a fit state of health and/or mind. 36. The learned Counsel for the Objector has drawn my attention to the discharge summary Ex. PW4/03 prepared at the time late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was discharged from hospital on 18th October 2000. It is recorded in the discharge summary that Ram Chander Sharma was a case of ASMI, CABG in 1983, ventricular arrhythimia, chronic smoker and ethanolic. It further shows that he was admitted with complaint of progressively loss of appetite for 1 to 2 week followed by diarrhoea 2 to 3 times and for last 24 hours. He had become unaware of surroundings and became confused. The discharge summary further shows that disorientation of Mr. Ram Chander Sharma was attributed to hepatitic encephalopathy. As explained by PW-4 Dr. Vinod Sharma, hepatitic encephalopathy is a liver disorder of the brain in layman's term. Discharge summary also shows that electrolyte of the patient was corrected and his billirubin level came down during the course in hospital. At the time of discharge the patient's condition was good dysetectnemia. Therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of his discharge from the hospital on 18th October 2010 late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was disoriented or was in a confused state of mind. It cannot be said that his physical and mental condition at the time of discharge from the hospital, was such, as could have prevented from understanding what he was doing while executing the Will Ex. PW2/1 and was taking a rational and well considered decision with respect to his estate. I, therefore, hold that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma possessed requisite disposition of mind at the time he executed and got the Will Ex. PW2/1 registered on 30th October 2010. 37. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Objector that the Will Ex. PW2/1 contained incorrect facts with respect to properties, subject matter of the Will, which indicates that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was not in a healthy state of mind while executing this Will. However, when asked to point out the alleged inaccuracy, the learned Counsel for the Objector stated that the properties mentioned in Para 3 of the Will were not owned by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma. Ram Chander Sharma was not in a healthy state of mind while executing this Will. However, when asked to point out the alleged inaccuracy, the learned Counsel for the Objector stated that the properties mentioned in Para 3 of the Will were not owned by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma. I, however, find that the deceased did not claim that these properties were owned by him. He merely stated that he had share/interest in the business concern mentioned in the Will, which was under litigation in Civil Appeal No. 2809 and 2810 of 1979 and which had been referred for settlement between the various contesting parties including himself for the mediation by Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee and that he had a substantial vested right in all the properties of various firms and private limited company, which were subject matter of the said case. He then proceeded to bequeath his entire rights and interests in the money and properties mentioned in the said civil appeal to his daughter Madhavi Ahluwalia. As regards Flat No. 34, Usha Kiran at Mumbai, he did not claim that he was its owner. He claimed that he was in possession of the aforesaid flat which he had bequeathed to his daughter Madhavi Ahluwalia. Since the Objector was residing in Usha Kiran flat under the authority of the deceased and not by virtue of some independent right vesting in her, the equal possession of the flat continued to vest in the deceased. Hence, there was no factual inaccuracy in the Will. He claimed a right in House No.3, Alipur road, Calcutta and also bequeathed the property at 145A, Shahpur Road, New Delhi to the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the deceased had no interest in the aforesaid property. He also claimed interests and rights with certain factory properties in Kanpur, Siliguri Jaipur, Calcutta and Cochin which were subject matter of Civil Suit No. 2809 and 2910 of 1979. There is nothing to show that these properties were not subject matter of the aforesaid appeals. Another important circumstance in this regard is that when PW-5 who is the official in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mumbai was examined, it transpired that another Will was executed by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on the very same day on which Will Ex. PW2/1 was executed by him. Another important circumstance in this regard is that when PW-5 who is the official in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mumbai was examined, it transpired that another Will was executed by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on the very same day on which Will Ex. PW2/1 was executed by him. Vide this Will, he bequeathed agricultural land in two villages in District Alwar of Rajasthan to his grand-children Vedant, Eesha and Sidhant. These agricultural lands were not made subject matter of the Will Ex. PW2/1. This clearly indicates that late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma was in a fit state of mind on 30th October 2000 and that is why he decided to bequeath the agricultural land to his grand-sons while bequeathing rest of his estate to the petitioner. Neither did he refer to agricultural land in District Alwar in the Will Ex. PW2/1 nor did he refer to the properties mentioned in the Will Ex. PW2/1, in the Will which he executed in favour of his grandchildren. Admittedly, the grandchildren of the deceased had not applied for probate of the Will executed in their favour nor had this Will been setup by them in any proceedings before it came to light during examination of PW5 in this case. This, in turn, indicates that the petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia was not present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 30th October 2000, though it is recorded in the Will Ex. PW2/1 that execution of the Will was admitted by her. The Objector Smt. Asha Sharma has admitted that part of the agricultural land in Village Alwar has been sold by her after death of late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma. Had the petitioner been aware of the Will Ex. PW5/1 executed on the very same day on which the Will in her favour Ex. PW2/1 was executed, she would have sought probate of this Will on behalf of her children and would not have allowed the Objector to sell part of the aforesaid agricultural land. 38. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I hold that Will Ex. PW10/1 was duly executed and got registered by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on 30th October 2001 and that he was in a sound disposing mind to execute the aforesaid Will. The issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the Objector. 38. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, I hold that Will Ex. PW10/1 was duly executed and got registered by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma on 30th October 2001 and that he was in a sound disposing mind to execute the aforesaid Will. The issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the Objector. ORDER In view of my findings on the issues, a probate of the Will Ex. PW2/1 executed by late Sh. Ram Chander Sharma in favour of the petitioner Madhavi Ahluwalia on 30th October 2000 is granted to the petitioner with the copy of the Will annexed to it. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.