Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 223 (DEL)

Shyam Mohan Gupta v. Brij Mohan Gupta thr. L. Rs.

2011-02-11

MOOL CHAND GARG

body2011
JUDGMENT Mool Chand Garg, J. CM No. 17926/2008 1. Since the LRs of the deceased Respondent No. 1 were duly served and the counsel appeared on their behalf, the application stands disposed of. 2. It is, however, noted that nobody is appearing on behalf of the Respondents since 22.09.2009. The Respondents seem to have lost interest in the matter. FAO No. 439/2008 1. This appeal has been filed by the propounders of the Will dated 09.12.1994 which was registered before the Sub-Registrar on 13.12.1994 alleged to have been executed by Late Smt. Rukmani Devi, the testatrix thereby bequeathing her house bearing No. 3014, Masjid Khazoor, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi in favour of the Appellants. However, the learned ADJ vide order dated 01.09.2008 dismissed the probate petition registered as P.C. No. 162/2006. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of this case are that the deceased testatrix Smt. Rukmani Devi left behind herself the Appellants as well as the Respondents as her legal heirs. While Respondents No. 2 to 6 are sons and daughters of the deceased, Appellants No. 2 to 4 and Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(f) are the grand children of the deceased testatrix. Respondents No. 4 to 6 are the married daughters of the deceased testatrix. 3. Smt. Rukmani Devi was carrying on the business left by her deceased husband in the name and style of M/s Regal Book Depot. After the death of her husband on 16.12.1992, Smt. Rukmani Devi relinquished all her rights in the business of her husband in favour of her three sons Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, Sh. Madan Mohan Gupta and Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal (R-1 to 3.). Nothing was given to other sons, namely, Sh. Shyam Mohan Gupta and Sh. Kishan Mohan Aggarwal (Appellants). 4. However, the Appellants claim to have succeeded to the house of Smt. Rukmani Devi by virtue of the Will in question executed by Smt. Rukmani Devi whereby they have become the beneficiaries of the Will with respect to house bearing No. 3014, Masjid Khazoor, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi. 5. The Appellant filed probate case for seeking letters of administration with respect to the Will left by the deceased before the District Judge, Delhi. Respondents filed objections against the grant of probate. They took following objections: a) That Smt. Rukmani Devi was not having any independent source of income. 5. The Appellant filed probate case for seeking letters of administration with respect to the Will left by the deceased before the District Judge, Delhi. Respondents filed objections against the grant of probate. They took following objections: a) That Smt. Rukmani Devi was not having any independent source of income. In fact her husband late Ram Chandra Gupta was the karta of HUF comprising of himself and his five sons and whatever he inherited from his father was invested in the business and from the income of the said business, the property in dispute was purchased. Hence the property was not the self acquired of Smt. Rukmani Devi and she was not competent to execute the Will. b) Smt. Rukmani Devi was not keeping good health, she had bad eye sight and her mental faculties were also not good enough to take any decision and thus, the Will has not been executed with sound disposing mind. c) The Will alleged to be executed on 09.12.1994 was in fact executed on 13.12.1994. d) Both the attesting witness of the Will were friends and acquaintances of the beneficiaries of the Will. e) Smt. Rukmani Devi had cordial relations with all her sons and there was no reason of her excluding the other sons from inheriting her property. She herself allowed her three sons to jointly occupy shop of her husband and the other sons were left out because they were in service and were doing business. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. ADJ vide order dated 17.03.1999: 1. Whether the Will dated 09.12.1994 propounded by the Petitioner is the last Will and testament of deceased Smt. Rukmani Devi and it has been executed by her in sound disposing mind and it is a valid Will? 2. Relief? 7. To prove issue No. 1, Appellants examined PW-1, Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, who is also the scribe of the Will in question, PW.2. Sh. A. Rehman, UDC from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, to prove registration of the Will registered on 13.12.1994. The next witness was PW-3 Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta. The other witnesses examined are PW-4, Sh. Anokhey Lal Gupta. PW-3 and PW-4 are the attesting witnesses of the Will. Sh. Shyam Mohan Gupta, Appellant, herein also appeared as PW-5. On the other hand, Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, Sh. The next witness was PW-3 Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta. The other witnesses examined are PW-4, Sh. Anokhey Lal Gupta. PW-3 and PW-4 are the attesting witnesses of the Will. Sh. Shyam Mohan Gupta, Appellant, herein also appeared as PW-5. On the other hand, Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta, Sh. Madan Mohan Gupta and Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal appeared to oppose the grant of probate. 8. The learned ADJ decided issue No. 1 against the Appellants by holding that the suspicion and dark clouds of doubt were hovering all around the genuineness of the Will in question. The first and foremost being the Will was drafted in Hindi in the year 1994 which was strange on the part of an advocate who exclusively dealt in drafting of the Wills and having drafted about two hundred Wills to draft the disputed Will in Hindi and not in English without any specific instructions. In this regard the learned ADJ observed that: Sh. Chaman Lal deposed that he was called by Sh. Anokhe Lal to witness the will, who played the important role in getting this will prepared. If five families are residingin a house in Kinari Bazar there is no way that an advocate shall directly enter the room of an old lady without being noticed by any other inmate of the house whereas Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, Sh. Chaman Lal and Sh. Anokhe Lal deposed that nobody came in the house till the execution of the will. Sh. Anokhe Lal who was known to the entire family would not go unnoticed by other family members if he visits the room of the testatrix. 9. The learned ADJ also commented adversely on account of there being no evidence as to who supplied the name and parentage of the attesting witnesses to Sh. Satish Chand Sharma so as to enable him to get it typed in the original Will on 08.12.1994. 10. The learned ADJ also observed that despite the testatrix having very cordial relations with all her sons, no solid reason has been given as to why she disinherited other three sons from succeeding to her property. Satish Chand Sharma so as to enable him to get it typed in the original Will on 08.12.1994. 10. The learned ADJ also observed that despite the testatrix having very cordial relations with all her sons, no solid reason has been given as to why she disinherited other three sons from succeeding to her property. The ADJ has not accepted the explanation furnished by the Appellants regarding disinheritance of 3 sons on the basis of certain averments made by the deceased testatrix in the Will on which reliance was placed by the Appellants to support the grant of probate, that is: My husband had taken shop number 2607,Nai Sarak, Delhi on rent in which he was running his business under the name and style of Regal Book Depot. He died on 14.12.1992. After his death his tenancy rights in shop number 2607, Nai Sarak, Delhi were disinherited by all his legal heirs. I had relinquished my tenancy rights and the rights in the business of said shop in favour of my three sons Brij Mohan Gupta, Madan Mohan Gupta and Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. All my three sons are running their business in that shop. I have not given any tenancy right to my son Shyam Mohan Gupta and Krishan Mohan Aggarwal. Both my sons Shyam Mohan Gupta and Krishan Mohan Aggarwal are serving me in my old age. I am very happy with them. Hence of my own free will without any pressure from others I am executing this will in favour of Shyam Mohan Gupta and Krishan Mohan Aggarwal. After my death my two sons above named shall be the owners of the house. 11. In this regard, it has been observed by the lower Court that: So the business was taken over by the three sons who were running the business with their father. The explanation given in the will for disinheriting them is not the outcome of the brain of the testatrix. She was an illiterate lady. She was not aware of these legal provisions that the tenancy rights were inherited by all the sons as well as by her and she surrendered her tenancy right in favour of three sons that is why she was bequeathing the entire house in favour of two sons only because at best she inherited one-ninth share in the tenancy rights of the shop after the death of her husband. The husband was survived by five sons, three daughters and his wife and she could not have transferred her tenancy rights in favour of any other son. The tenancy rights are not transferable. They can only be inherited by all the legal heirs simultaneously. Similarly if her husband died intestate as claimed by her, one-nineth share in his share in the business was inherited by her. As other sons were the partners in the business and that was the only source of their livelihood they continued running business whereas both other sons, the Petitioners herein, being in government service were having their independent source of income and continued in their service. The house was owned by the mother. All the sons were living with their families in the same house. So the explanation given by her in the will is not sound to be accepted that because she surrendered her share in the tenancy rights of the shop in favour of three other sons that is why she excluded them from inheriting her house. This calculative reason given in the will is either the brain child of Sh. Shyam Mohan Gupta and Sh. Krishan Mohan Aggarwal or of Sh. Anokhe Lal and not of old illiterate lady. 12. According to the Appellants, this suo moto explanation given by the learned ADJ ignored the factum of love and affection of the deceased testatrix qua the Appellants inasmuch as she had taken note of not only the requirements of the Appellants who are in Government service but also has taken note of the inheritance of the business by the three sons who on account of surrender of tenancy rights by the deceased Respondents would naturally be in a position to continue with the business in the Shop in question uninterruptedly. 13. The learned ADJ further accepted the case of the Respondents by expressing doubt regarding drafting of the Will by Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, Advocate by observing that he was not present at the time of registration of the Will. In fact, he further observed that on the Will: A stamp was already put by Sh. D.P. Singh,advocate on the will and the will was not drafted by him. So to meet out this contingency that who drafted the will Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, Advocate by observing that he was not present at the time of registration of the Will. In fact, he further observed that on the Will: A stamp was already put by Sh. D.P. Singh,advocate on the will and the will was not drafted by him. So to meet out this contingency that who drafted the will Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, advocate signed on this will after its execution as well as registration because an advocate having twenty-five years of practice and having drafted more than two hundred wills knows where to sign and put his stamp in token of having drafted the will. A perusal of the original will shows that finding no space at any other place on page number 3 of the will to write 'Drafted by Satish Chand Sharma, advocate' he signed at this place where his signature appear. An advocate having genuinely drafted the will shall put his rubber stamp and signature immediately below the signatures of the attesting witnesses in token of having drafted the will and even otherwise if the advocate who drafted the will was regularly engaged in drafting the wills, there was no necessity of approaching Sh. D.P. Singh, advocate for the purpose of getting the will registered. What was the need of getting the will registered through Sh. D.P. Singh, advocate when Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, advocate who drafted the will was available in the vicinity. Sh. Krishan Mohan Aggarwal was a post graduate teacher in Hindi and this will appears to have been drafted by him and not by Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, advocate as written on the document. 14. As stated above, Sh. Satish Chand Sharma, Advocate has appeared in the witness box. It would be appropriate to take note of his testimony. He has deposed as under: I am practicing as an advocate for the last 24 years. I know Smt. Rukmani Devi. I had drafted the Will and the original Will is signed by me at point 'A' and writing is also written by me which is in the circle. The said Will was drafted by me under the instructions of Smt. Rukmani Devi. After the Will was drafted by me, I went to the house of Smt. Rukmani Devi at about 5 p.m. on 9.12.94. The said Will was drafted by me under the instructions of Smt. Rukmani Devi. After the Will was drafted by me, I went to the house of Smt. Rukmani Devi at about 5 p.m. on 9.12.94. I had read the contents of the said Will to Smt. Rukmani Devi who admitted the contents of the said Will as correct. Smt. Rukmani Devi thumb marked the said Will in my presence on every page. The witnesses were also present at that time. The witnesses are Anokhe Lal and Chaman Lal. They had signed in my presence as also in the presence of Smt. Rukmani Devi. The said Will is mark 'X'. Thumb impression of Rukmani Devi are at point 'B' on each page. Signatures of Anokhe Lal are at point 'C' and that of Chaman Lal are at point 'D', on the said Will mark 'X'. Smt. Rukmani Devi was of sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the said Will. She was in a position to see everything. 15. This deposition shows that he not only deposed about the Will having been prepared at the asking of the deceased testatrix, he also identified her thumb impression on the Will. He also proved the signatures of the attesting witnesses Anokhe Lal and Chaman Lal and also deposed that the witnesses have signed in presence of each other and in presence of the deceased testatrix. 16. It may be observed here that despite the deposition made by Sh. Satish Chand Sharma and the other witnesses learned ADJ accepted the case of the Respondents that the deceased testatrix was not of sound and disposing mind and was incapable of executing the Will in question. Even though there was evidence available on record as led by the Appellants that the testatrix used to go to the temple every morning and had gone to the temple even on that day, came back, took tea and thereafter died of heart attack. Even though, the ADJ held that while it was true that the deceased testatrix had not lost her mental balance or that the Will was not got thumb marked from her when she was on death bed yet presumed that the circumstances surrounding the case are such that she would not have thumb marked this Will. Even though, the ADJ held that while it was true that the deceased testatrix had not lost her mental balance or that the Will was not got thumb marked from her when she was on death bed yet presumed that the circumstances surrounding the case are such that she would not have thumb marked this Will. It has been presumed by the learned ADJ without there being any evidence on record that the testatrix had not understood the contents of the Will. The order passed by the ADJ is based upon surmises and conjectures in having stated that being a homely uneducated lady she could not approach the advocate on her own with Sh. Anokhe Lal without disclosing her intention to any of her sons when she was having very cordial relations with all her sons and used to have her food with her youngest son Sh. Vijay Kumar as admitted by all the legal heirs then there was no reason to disinherit him from this property. It may be observed here that merely because the deceased testatrix was taking food with his son Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, it cannot be presumed that the Will in question has been executed by the deceased testatrix contrary to the interest of Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal inasmuch as, admittedly, Sh. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal has already inherited the business of the husband of the deceased testatrix. 17. By the impugned order, the learned ADJ has dismissed the probate petition which order has been assailed before this Court. The Appellants have submitted that statements made by Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta and Sh. Anokhey Lal prove the execution of the Will and its registration by the deceased testatrix while being in sound and disposing mind. The execution of the Will has not been challenged by anyone. It has also been proved that the Will bears the thumb impression of the testatrix which was affixed by her out of her own free will. The thumb impression was affixed by her in presence of the two witnesses who also attested the execution of the Will in presence of the testatrix and in presence of each other. It is submitted that thereafter, the Will was even registered on 13.12.1994. The thumb impression was affixed by her in presence of the two witnesses who also attested the execution of the Will in presence of the testatrix and in presence of each other. It is submitted that thereafter, the Will was even registered on 13.12.1994. As such, it is submitted that the Appellants proved all the essential requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and thus, proved the execution of the Will in accordance with law. 18. In this regard, reference has been made to the statement of Sh. Chaman Lal Gupta and Sh. Anokhe Lal. Their statement to the extent that they attested the affixation of thumb impression by the deceased testatrix in their presence on the Will dated 09.12.1994 which was produced for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 13.12.1994 on which date the Will was also registered has not been questioned by the objectors. It is nobody's case that the death of the deceased testatrix on 14.12.1994 i.e. on the next date of the registration of the Will took place in any suspicious circumstances or that her death is not a natural death or it is the handy work of anyone, much less, that of the Appellants. The admission of the Respondents regarding the visit of temple by the deceased testatrix everyday including the day when the Will was executed strengthens the arguments of the Appellant that the testatrix being capable of going to the temple everyday was in a position to decide about her wellbeing and, thus, to execute the Will voluntarily and out of her own free will. 19. According to the Appellants, execution of the Will in Hindi could not have been considered suspicious circumstance, more so, when it has come in the evidence that the testatrix was a literate woman and she could read Hindi. PW-1 Shri Satish Chand Sharma has clearly stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi and that the contents of the Will were drafted on her instructions and the same were read over and understood by her in his presence. PW-4 Shri Anokhey Lal has also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. PW-3 Shri Chaman Lal and PW-5 Shri Shyam Mohan Gupta have also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. PW-4 Shri Anokhey Lal has also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. PW-3 Shri Chaman Lal and PW-5 Shri Shyam Mohan Gupta have also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. Since the Appellants proved that Rukmani devi could read Hindi and the same was drafted on her instructions, the Will being in Hindi could not be a suspicious circumstance. 20. It was further submitted by the Appellants that the objection raised regarding the fact that PW-1 Satish Chand Sharma prepared the Will and went to the residence of the testatrix on 9.12.1984 for getting the same signed is not a suspicious circumstance as once the execution of the Will stands proved these facts cannot be taken to be a suspicious circumstance. The Appellants also contended that the question as to who gave the names of the attesting witnesses to the Advocate is irrelevant since the evidence on record proves the execution of will by the testatrix who took the assistance of an old employee of her husband and there was nothing unnatural about the same. 21. The Appellants have relied upon the following judgments dealing with suspicious circumstances: (1) Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sodha and Ors. 2005(1) SCC 40 (2)Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. 2005 (2) SCC 784 (3)Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao and Ors. 2006 (13) SCC 433 (4) Anil Kak v. Sharda Raje 2008 (7) SCC 695 (5) Rajesh Arora v. State and Ors. AIR 2009 Delhi 111 22. The Respondents have justified the order refusing probate by the learned ADJ due to suspicious circumstance referred to by the learned ADJ in the impugned judgment as discussed above. 23. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the record, the impugned order passed by the learned ADJ as well as the judgments cited by the Appellants. In this regard, I may observe that in the case of Sridevi and Ors. v. Jayaraja Shetty and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 784 the Apex Court has held that: It is well settled proposition of law that mode of proving the Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. (2005) 2 SCC 784 the Apex Court has held that: It is well settled proposition of law that mode of proving the Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The onus to prove the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, need be sufficient to discharge the onus. Where there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would again be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the Will can be accepted as genuine. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precise and certain and should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. In case the person contesting the Will alleges undue influence, fraud or coercion, the onus will be on him to prove the same. As to what are suspicious circumstances has to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. ..... 14. The propounder of the Will has to show that the Will was signed by the testator; that he was at the relevant time in sound disposing state of mind; that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will and that he had signed it in the presence of the two witnesses who attested in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. DW 2, the scribe, in his testimony has categorically stated that the Will was scribed by him at the dictation of the testator. The two attesting witnesses have deposed that the testator had signed the Will in their presence while in sound disposing state of mind after understanding the nature and effect of dispositions made by him. That he signed the Will in their presence and they had signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of each other. In cross-examination, the Appellants failed to elicit anything which could persuade us to disbelieve their testimony. That he signed the Will in their presence and they had signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of each other. In cross-examination, the Appellants failed to elicit anything which could persuade us to disbelieve their testimony. It has not been shown that they were in any way interested in the propounders of the Will or that on their asking they could have deposed falsely in court. Their testimony inspires confidence. The testimony of the scribe (DW 2) and the two attesting witnesses (D Ws 3 and 4) is fully corroborated by the statement of the handwriting expert (DW 5). The Will runs into 6 pages. The testator had signed each of the 6 pages. The handwriting expert compared the signatures of the testator with his admitted signatures. He has opined that the signatures on the Will are that of the testator. In our view, the Will had been duly executed. Coming to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, it may be stated that although the testator was 80 years of age at the time of the execution of the Will and he died after 15 days of the execution of the Will, the two attesting witnesses and the scribe have categorically stated that the testator was in sound state of health and possessed his full physical and mental faculties. Except that the deceased was 80 years of age and that he died within 15 days of the execution of the Will, nothing has been brought on record to show that the testator was not in good health or not possessed of his physical or mental faculties. From the cross-examination of the scribe and the two attesting witnesses, the Appellants have failed to bring out anything which could have put a doubt regarding the physical or mental incapacity of the testator to execute the Will. Submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the testator had deprived the other heirs of his property is not true. The family properties had been partitioned in the year 1961. The shares which were given to Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba were in possession of the tenants and vested in the State Government after coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 whereas the properties which had been given to the daughters were in the personal cultivation of the family. The shares which were given to Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba were in possession of the tenants and vested in the State Government after coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 whereas the properties which had been given to the daughters were in the personal cultivation of the family. The testator while executing the Will bequeathed the properties which had fallen to his share in the partition and which he had inherited from his brother which were in his personal cultivation in favour of his two sons Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba and gave the right to receive compensation to other heirs of the properties which were under the tenants and had vested in the State Government. It is not a case where the father had deprived his other children totally from inheritance. Reasons for unequal distribution have been given in the Will itself. This had been done by him to balance the equitable distribution of the properties in favour of all his children. 24. In the instant case, the witnesses produced by the Appellant, namely, PW1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW5 have proved the execution of the Will. Their testimony that the Will has been signed by Late Smt. Rukmani Devi in their presence has not been denied by anyone. The state of mind of the deceased testator being that of sound and disposing stands proved by the statement of PW1, the advocate who drafted the Will and also by PW-4 and PW-5, the attesting witnesses. Even the Learned ADJ in the impugned order has observed that there was no doubt that the testatrix had not lost her mental balance or that the Will was not got thumb marked from her when she was on death bed , hence once these facts stood proved, the Appellants had discharged their burden and the onus resting on the propounder of the Will stood discharge 25. Further the objections raised regarding the Will being drafted in Hindi and the contents of the Will being the brainchild of the Appellants. I would like to observe that the Appellants have proved through their evidence that the tetatrix was a literate woman and could read in Hindi. Further the objections raised regarding the Will being drafted in Hindi and the contents of the Will being the brainchild of the Appellants. I would like to observe that the Appellants have proved through their evidence that the tetatrix was a literate woman and could read in Hindi. PW-1 Shri Satish Chand Sharma has clearly stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi and that the contents of the Will were drafted on her instructions and the same were read over and understood by her in his presence. PW-4 Shri Anokhey Lal has also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. PW-3 Shri Chaman Lal and PW-5 Shri Shyam Mohan Gupta have also stated that Late Rukmani Devi could read Hindi. Since the Appellants proved that Rukmani devi could read Hindi and the same was drafted on her instructions, the Will being in Hindi could not be a suspicious circumstance. As regarding the objection that since Appellants were teachers by profession and it was for this reason they were not inducted in the family business has not been proved by any evidence. Hence in such circumstances it could not be concluded that the explanation was the brainchild of the Appellants. 26. I would also like to observe that the objection raised regarding the other legal heirs being deprived of the share irrespective of fact that they shared a cordial relation with each other as well as the testatrix leads to a suspicious circumstance cannot be said to be correct in the light of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma 2007 (11) SCC 621 wherein it has been held that deprivation of a due share to the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exists suspicious circumstances. The relevant extract is produced here under: Therein, this Court also took into consideration the decision of this Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar, wherein the following circumstances were held to be relevant for determination of the existence of the suspicious circumstances: 34. ... The relevant extract is produced here under: Therein, this Court also took into consideration the decision of this Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar, wherein the following circumstances were held to be relevant for determination of the existence of the suspicious circumstances: 34. ... (i) when a doubt is created in regard to the condition of mind of the testator despite his signature on the will; (ii) when the disposition appears to be unnatural or wholly unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances; (iii) where propounder himself takes prominent part in the execution of will which confers on him substantial benefit. 21. We do not find in the fact situation obtaining herein that any such suspicious circumstance was existing. We are not unmindful of the fact that the court must satisfy its conscience before its genuineness is accepted. But what is necessary therefor, is a rational approach. 22. Deprivation of a due share by the natural heirs itself is not a factor which would lead to the conclusion that there exist suspicious circumstances. For the said purpose, as noticed hereinbefore, the background facts should also be taken into consideration. The son was not meeting his father. He had not been attending to him. He was not even meeting the expenses for his treatment from 1959, when he lost his job till his death in 1978. The testator was living with his sister and her children. If in that situation, if he executed a will in their favour, no exception thereto can be taken. Even then, something was left for the Appellant. 23. In Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande this Court held: 8. A will is executed to alter the mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a will. It is true that a propounder of the will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance, especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring 24. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance, especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring 24. Strong reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur wherein it was held: 4. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied that the will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Succession Act, 1925 but it should also be found that the said will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the will to dispel the suspicious circumstance. As in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court of appeal below did not accept the valid execution of the will by indicating reasons and coming to a specific finding that suspicion had not been dispelled to the satisfaction of the Court and such finding of the court of appeal below has also been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment, we do not find any reason to interfere with such decision. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs. 25. There is no dispute in regard to the proposition that the conscience of the court must be satisfied. In the instant case, the High Court has considered the relevant factors. It has been found that the will was the product of the free will. He had executed the will after knowing and understanding the contents thereof. 26. Joseph Antony Lazarus v. A.J. Francis10 whereupon again reliance was placed, one of the circumstances was that the names of the two sons of the testator had not been mentioned therein. The said decision cannot be said to have any application to the instant case. 27. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. 27. The said decision cannot be said to have any application to the instant case. 27. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. 27. The learned ADJ has thus ignored the explanation furnished by the testatrix for bequeathing the residential house in favour of the Appellants inasmuch as the testatrix has given the residential house to the Appellants while she has given the business left by her husband to the other two sons. As far as the capacity of the deceased testatrix in having executed the Will in question, the very fact that the property stands in the name of the deceased testatrix itself proves capacity of the testatrix to execute the Will. No evidence has been led that she was not the owner of the property or was not competent to dispose of the property by way of Will. In any event, while deciding a probate petition these issues are not to be gone into when, admittedly, the deceased testatrix is the registered owner of the property in question. The question of inheritance of the shop which admittedly was inherited by the deceased testatrix as a sole tenant after the death of her husband also cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstance for having deprived those sons who are now carrying out the business in the shop of her husband to the exclusion of the other sons to whom the house has been bequeathed. 28. In view of the aforesaid, the findings returned by the ADJ on both the issues framed in this case cannot be sustained. The same is hereby reversed and the appeal is allowed. It is held that the Appellants are entitled to grant of letters of administration of the Will after complying with other nodal formalities to the satisfaction of the learned ADJ. TCR be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order. CM 17924/2008 Interim order stands vacated. Application stands disposed of.