JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.:- This appeal is against the judgment dated 14.12.2010, whereby the petition filed by Rajnish Tuli-appellant (hereinafter referred as ‘the appellant’) for grant of letter of Administration in respect of the Estate mentioned in the Will executed by his father namely Madan Lal Tuli, has been dismissed. 2. The prime question for determination in this case is, “whether unregistered Will (Holograph) dated 02.04.2000 executed by Madan Lal Tuli (expired on 09.06.2003) in favour of Rajnish Tuli-appellant, is a valid testament conferring rights upon him and entitling him to the probate regarding the property left by late Madan Lal Tuli?” 3. Madan Lal Tuli had two sons namely Sandeep Tuli-respondent No.3 and appellant. Naresh Tuli-respondent No.2 is the wife of late Madan Lal Tuli. He was working as Assistant Registrar in the Punjab University, Chandigarh, and residing at House No.2214, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the said Madan Lal Tuli, while in sound disposing mind, executed a valid Will on 02.04.2000, bequeathing the aforesaid house along with the bank deposits and deposits made in the Post Office and other deposits, in favour of the appellant, therefore, the latter was entitled to the grant of letter of Administration in respect of the estate of late Madan Lal Tuli. 4. Upon notice, respondent No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas, respondent No.2 (wife of the deceased) accepted the Will while admitting the claim of the appellant. However, respondent No.3 contested the petition. In his written statement, he denied the said Will and claimed natural succession. It was further stated that the alleged unregistered document ignoring the natural heirs of the deceased, who were otherwise entitled to succeed to the said property, was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The appellant kept it concealed for two years. It was further averred that the language, the text and the spelling mistakes with regard to the said Will bear ample testimony to the irresistible fact that the same is a bogus and manufactured document prepared by the appellant to usurp his rights. The witnesses to the Will being bosom friends of the appellant were supposed to support the cause of the appellant. 5. The rival pleas gave rise to the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of letter of probate? OPP 2. Relief. 6. The witnesses to the Will being bosom friends of the appellant were supposed to support the cause of the appellant. 5. The rival pleas gave rise to the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of letter of probate? OPP 2. Relief. 6. In order to support the Will, the appellant himself appeared as PW-1 and examined K.C. Nanda, U.D.C. Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh (PW-1), Vineet Sayal (PW-2), Ashwani Sharma (PW-3), Maya Ram, Senior Assistant (PW-4), Joginder Pal, Postal Assistant (PW-5), Jasod Ram, CTO, Central Bank of India (PW-6) and Aman Luthra (PW-7). 7. On the other hand, respondent No.3-Sandeep Tuli himself appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and furnished his affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed his evidence. 8. The trial Court refused to accept the Will. 9. Arguments heard. Record perused. 10. The prominent witnesses to prove the case of the appellant were the witnesses to the Will namely Aman Luthra and Sumit Gupta, out of them, the appellant had examined Aman Luthra as PW-7. He has duly established that Madan Lal Tuli scribed this Will himself while in sound disposing mind. He knew what he had scribed and there was no pressure upon him when he scribed it. Aman Luthra has further disclosed that on the day of scribing of the Will, he was called by the testator at his house, as he was on good visiting terms with him. Sumit Gupta also came there and they sat in the room of Madan Lal Tuli, who showed them a draft of the Will written in his own handwriting. Then Madan Lal Tuli had disclosed them that he had executed his last and final Will (Ex.PW7/B), in favour of Rajnish Tuli-appellant. The said Will was read over and explained to him as well as Sumit Gupta and both of them signed the said Will. That apart, Maya Ram (PW-4) proved that the arms licence, which was in the name of Madan Lal Tuli, was transferred in the name of Rajnish Tuli. Ashwani Sharma (PW-3) had proved the loan agreement (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B), vide which Madan Lal Tuli had taken the loan. As per the said documents, the appellant had stood as guarantor for the deceased. Joginder Pal, Postal Assistant (PW-5) has stated that the appellant was the nominee of postal account No.299453, which was in the name of Madan Lal Tuli. Ashwani Sharma (PW-3) had proved the loan agreement (Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B), vide which Madan Lal Tuli had taken the loan. As per the said documents, the appellant had stood as guarantor for the deceased. Joginder Pal, Postal Assistant (PW-5) has stated that the appellant was the nominee of postal account No.299453, which was in the name of Madan Lal Tuli. Similarly, Jasod Ram (PW-6) had disclosed that the appellant was appointed as nominee by Madan Lal Tuli in his saving bank account No.3234. It may also be mentioned here that Naresh Tuli, wife of Madan Lal Tuli, also supported the case of the appellant. Rather, she was poised against respondent No.3, as she had stated in her written statement that the conduct of his younger son Sandip Tuli was not good, as such he had executed the Will in his own hand and in sound disposing mind. 11. The argument that irregular manner of the writing of the Will indicates that the deceased was under some threat or pressure, therefore, the same cannot be said to be of his free mind, is not acceptable. This fact cannot be ignored that the deceased was 71 years old at that time and he might not be having good health. Mere fact that he could not write in straight lines is no reason to draw the inference that he was not of sound disposing mind. It has not been disputed at all that the Will was not in the handwriting of the deceased. No such expert has been examined in order to challenge that the handwriting and signatures on the Will were not that of the deceased. The holograph Will unless is proved to have been scribed under coercion, threat or pressure, can be treated as on better footing than that of a registered Will. Out of the two witnesses, Aman Luthra (PW-7) has duly proved the execution of the Will. He was cross-examined at length, but nothing fruitful could be elucidated from his testimony, which may falsify the execution of the Will. No medical evidence has been produced on the record in order to show that Madan Lal Tuli was of feeble mind or was not possessing proper mental faculties. 12. He was cross-examined at length, but nothing fruitful could be elucidated from his testimony, which may falsify the execution of the Will. No medical evidence has been produced on the record in order to show that Madan Lal Tuli was of feeble mind or was not possessing proper mental faculties. 12. The argument that the front page of the Will was not signed, is also of no consequence, as the Will was scribed by Madan Lal Tuli on both the sides of one page and Madan Lal signed on the back side of the page. As such, it was not essential for him to sign on both the sides of the page. The presence of the testimonial clause at the end of the Will, in the handwriting of the deceased, makes it more authenticated. 13. The findings of the trial Court that other legal heirs were ignored without any reason and no reasons to ignore them have been mentioned in the Will, has no force, as it is clearly stated in the Will as under:- “My successors shall have no claim, title and interest in the said property and any objection raised by them regarding the Will shall be null and void and ineffective.” 14. The circumstances speak for themselves that there were reasons to ignore respondent No.3. I was apprised that both Sandeep Tuli and Madan Lal were working in the Punjab University, whereas the appellant was not working there. But, the deceased never preferred to repose confidence in Sandeep Tuli. The circumstances reveal that he had no cordial relations with him. He did not appoint respondent No.3, as his nominee in the Post Office or bank accounts, which he had opened in the University itself. Had he been attracting any love and affection at the hands of the deceased or his mother, she would not have come forward to support the cause of the appellant and support the Will, but that was not done. The respondent No.3, even could not dare to examine her as his witness. Therefore, the reasons are apparent for ignoring him from the inheritance by way of the present testament. The respondent No.3, even could not dare to examine her as his witness. Therefore, the reasons are apparent for ignoring him from the inheritance by way of the present testament. Though, it has been vehemently argued that the Will is a forged and fabricated document, but no such plea has been raised by respondent No.3 that the said Will was not in the hand of Madan Lal Tuli and it does not bear his signatures. Though, in the written statement filed by respondent No.2, it has been submitted that Aman Luthra (PW-7) being close friend of the appellant, has appeared in his support, yet this allegation does not in any way damage the case of the appellant, as respondent No.2 has not led any evidence in order to establish the friendship of the appellant with Aman Luthra and enmity with him, so as to depose against him. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court reaches the conclusion that the appellant has been successful in removing all the suspicious circumstances, thrown over the Will and the Will appears to have been executed by Madan Lal Tuli for well explained reasons in favour of the appellant and he had good reasons to ignore Sandeep Tuli. 16. The trial Court has not sensitized the value of the holograph and has considered it to be an ordinary unregistered document, as scribed by some other person, which required the assessment of deceased’s mental faculties and the state of mind of the deceased. In the absence of any threat, undue influence, coercion or cruelty played over the deceased, the holograph recorded by the deceased required to be given much importance. 17. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the letter of administration in respect of the estate mentioned in the Will dated 02.04.2000 executed by deceased Madan Lal Tuli, is issued in favour of the appellant. ---------0.B.S.0------------