JUDGMENT R.S. Dalvi, J. 1. The plaintiff has sued for probate of the last will and testament of his mother Bhagwati Bai Khetan dated 27th August, 2001. The plaintiff's brother and sister have challenged the will and are accordingly the defendants in the suit upon filing their respective caveats. Another brother one Ravindrakumar has not challenged the will. Under the will the plaintiff is the largest beneficiary. The other brother Ravindrakumar has also been bequeathed the 1/2 share of the deceased in one haveli in Rajasthan. The defendants have not been bequeathed any part of the estate of the deceased. The defendants claim that the will has been got prepared by the plaintiff by practicing fraud and coercion upon the mother. Upon the respective cases of the parties the following issues were framed by this Court and are answered as follows: ISSUES FINDINGS 1 Whether the last will and testament of Smt. Bhagwatibai Khetan dated 27th August, 2001 was validly executed. Yes 2 Whether the said will was executed by fraud or any coercion No 3 What relief, if any, the Plaintiff is entitled to ? As per final order 2. The plaintiff has deposed about the relationship of the parties and the state of health as well as work of the deceased. The plaintiff has examined one of the attesting witnesses. Upon such evidence the aforesaid issues are required to be considered. 3. Issue No. 1: The last will and testament of the deceased Bhagwati Bai Khetan dated 27th August, 2001 is prepared by an Advocate on legal sized papers including a stamp paper on page one. It has been registered with the Registrar of Assurances soon thereafter on 29th September, 2001 by the deceased. The deceased has put her initials BBK at the foot of each page of the will and has put her full signature "Bhagwati Bai B. Khetan" at the foot of the will. The will has been attested by two witnesses. One of whom is the Advocate who has deposed before the Court and who has prepared the will. 4. The will is in the usual format as are drafted by Advocates. It shows the name, position, address and age of the deceased and the fact of revocation of earlier testamentary disposition. It appoints the plaintiff as the executor. It declares about the movables and immovable properties which the deceased has authority to dispose off. 4. The will is in the usual format as are drafted by Advocates. It shows the name, position, address and age of the deceased and the fact of revocation of earlier testamentary disposition. It appoints the plaintiff as the executor. It declares about the movables and immovable properties which the deceased has authority to dispose off. It mentions about the debits and liabilities as well as taxes. It enumerates four immovable properties of the deceased and three types of movable properties. It bequeaths all the movable and immovable properties to the plaintiff and bequeaths the half share of the deceased in one property to another son, Ravindra. It nominates the plaintiff as the trustee of the trusts of the deceased in both of which the deceased was the sole surviving trustee being Bhagwati Prasad Khetan Trust and Bhagwati Khetan Lok Hitkari Trust. It also makes the plaintiff the residuary legatee. 5. The defendant No. 1 is also the son of the deceased. He has been completely disinherited. His brother Ravindra has been bequeathed only one of the properties of the deceased. The defendant No. 2 is the married daughter of the deceased and has not been bequeathed any property. To show the valid execution of the will the plaintiff has relied upon a number of documents, both private and public showing the signature of the deceased, the most important of which is the passport of the deceased marked Exhibit-P3 containing her entire long signature "Bhagwati Bai B. Khetan". The plaintiff has produced a minutes of the meeting signed by the deceased with her initials and signature on 27th June, 1995 as Exhibit P6. The plaintiff has produced certain letters addressed by the deceased with her full signature or initials addressed to the Central Bank of India bearing the stamp of the deceased which is marked Exhibit P8. There are certain documents with regard to the trust in which the deceased worked prior to and immediately after the execution of the will. The plaintiff has produced the letter dated 5th September, 2001 soon after the registration of the will along with the cheque mentioned therein showing drawing of the cheque by the deceased under her two long entire signatures and the copy letter carrying her initials along with the receipt of the trust for the cheque received by it which is marked Exhibit P10. The plaintiff has also produced certain receipts issued by the deceased in favour of certain other outside parties as the trustee of the aforesaid trust only to show the signature of the deceased and which are marked Exhibit-P12 and P13. The plaintiff has also produced copy of a letter dated 24th January, 2002, well after the execution and registration of the will of the deceased issued by the deceased bearing the initial of the deceased issuing a cheque of Rs. 21 lakhs by her as the trustee of Bhagwati Prasad Khetan Trust to the trust of Anandilal Potdar Trust along with the photocopy of the cheque containing the deceased's entire long signature and the receipt issued by the Anandilal Potdar Charitable Society in that behalf. This is corroborated by a bank statement produced by the plaintiff of Bhagwati Prasad Khetan Trust of which the deceased was the sole trustee showing the debit of Rs. 21 lakhs in that account in favour of Anandilal Potdar Trust on 28th January, 2002. These documents indeed show the consistent signatures of the deceased through the years. They also show the active life which she led before and after the will and the fact that she was a woman of the world in charge of two trusts as also a company of which she was the Managing Director applying her independent mind in her legal and professional affairs. 6. In the face of such documents the plaintiff has produced office copies of two criminal complaints filed by the deceased against her son Ashokkumar, defendant No. 1 herein, his family members and others dated 10th July, 1995 and 24th July, 1995. The factum of the filing of the complaints is not denied. Photocopies of the complaints are marked Exhibits-P7 (colly). It is contended by the defendants that the complaints are false and made at the instance of the plaintiff and are dismissed. We are not concerned with the merits of the complaints in this Testamentary Suit. We are only concerned with the factum of the lodging of the complaint. If the deceased herself lodged her complaint against her own son and his family including his wife and child, her relations with defendant No. 1 and his family must have been strained. The complaints are essentially under Section 323 for causing hurt upon assault. We are only concerned with the factum of the lodging of the complaint. If the deceased herself lodged her complaint against her own son and his family including his wife and child, her relations with defendant No. 1 and his family must have been strained. The complaints are essentially under Section 323 for causing hurt upon assault. The case made out in the complaint is that the defendant No. 1 assaulted the mother whilst threatening her to sign blank cheques, some of which he had encashed. It is argued on behalf of defendant No. 1 that he was also the Director and had no need to obtain blank cheques signed by another Director. Be that as it may, the complaints show the strained relations. The plaintiff has also produced a copy of the complaint filed by him against his brother and his family and others on 24th July, 1995. It has not been shown what happened to that complaint. Though nothing would turn upon that complaint, it is seen it is not the same complaint as that of his mother. An earlier complaint is also being filed by the mother about the fortnight prior to that date. This is followed by a letter of the mother addressed to Central Bank of India requesting to stop payment of certain cheques. 7. The oral evidence of the plaintiff shows the relations between his mother and the defendant, the incidents that transpired and the fact that certain blank cheques were got signed by defendant No. 1 through his mother. The mother signed the cheques and when she realised that certain debits have been made she informed the bank to stop payment of the remainder of the cheques signed by her. His cross-examination has not upturned any of such evidence. 8. Under such family circumstances the mother is not expected to bequeath her properties to defendant No. 1 unless defendant No. 1 shows a change of circumstances and a change of heart between the period of July to September, 1995 when the aforesaid complaints were filed and the letter was written and August, 2001 when the will was executed. No evidence in that behalf is led. Hence the plaintiffs evidence both oral and documentary shows the state of mind of the deceased and her relations with defendant No. 1. 9. No evidence in that behalf is led. Hence the plaintiffs evidence both oral and documentary shows the state of mind of the deceased and her relations with defendant No. 1. 9. To prove the actual execution of the will by the person so shown to be merited to make the testamentary bequest the plaintiff has examined the attesting witness who is the lawyer of the deceased and who got the will drafted and executed also. His evidence shows that he knew Bhagwa-tibai since 1973-1974 he was a lawyer in various commercial and legal matters. She had faith in him. In July, 2001 she instructed him to prepare her will. He prepared it and got it engrossed on 27th August, 2001. The deceased came to his office along with the other attesting witness who was the accountant of a company in which she was a Director/Managing Director, Khaitan Industries Pvt. Ltd. for executing the will. He has further deposed that the deceased executed her will in presence of both the witnesses of her own free will and without any coercion and undue influence on 27th August, 2001 in his office when she was of sound disposing mind and understanding. He has identified all the signatures on the will as also initials on each page of the will. He has deposed how the deceased executed first and her execution was witnessed later by two attesting witnesses including himself. His affidavit of examination-in-chief completely proves the will. He has been cross examined with regard to his legal acumen and experience. 10. His cross examination shows that he must have prepared 15 to 20 wills as a professional. So far the execution of the will of the deceased is concerned he did not recall the exact date and time but recalled that Bhagwatibai attended his office in July, 2001 and in the afternoon on 27th August, 2001. He did not recall who purchased the stamp paper of which page one of the will is typewritten. He accepted that though it was not required he had called for the stamp papers as the deceased wanted to register the will. He has refuted the suggestion that the will is prepared by fraud or forged (both cases being contrary). 11. He did not recall who purchased the stamp paper of which page one of the will is typewritten. He accepted that though it was not required he had called for the stamp papers as the deceased wanted to register the will. He has refuted the suggestion that the will is prepared by fraud or forged (both cases being contrary). 11. It has been the contention on behalf of the defendants that the will of the deceased is not a valid will because she has not executed the will in the execution clause where it was required to be executed. My attention has been drawn by Counsel on behalf of the defendants to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to show the mode of execution by a testatrix. The relevant part of Section 63 runs thus: CHAPTER III OF THE EXECUTION OF UNPRIVILEGED WILLS 63. Execution of unprivileged Wills-Every testator.... shall execute his Will according to the following rules: (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. 12. Consequently there is no place fixed by the legislature where the signature must be affixed. It must be affixed "to the will". It must be placed such as to appear that it will give effect to the document as a will. Nothing further is required. It is argued that the testatrix has not signed the execution clause. The testatrix has signed immediately above the execution clause. The execution clause has been typewritten spanning more than three quarter of the horizontal breadth of the legal paper on which the will has been engrossed. The testatrix's full signature is rather long. She has signed as "Bhagwati Bai B. Khetan" it could not fit into the space left for signature after the type-written portion. Hence it had to be and is affixed immediately above and closest to the execution clause. It could well has been affixed at the foot of the execution clause. It is not mandatorily required to be only to the right of the execution clause. Hence it had to be and is affixed immediately above and closest to the execution clause. It could well has been affixed at the foot of the execution clause. It is not mandatorily required to be only to the right of the execution clause. It is, therefore, correctly affixed to the will so as to show the intention that the document is nothing else but the will of the deceased. In fact it is immediately after the date in the last clause of the will. 13. It is contended that the will is not at all executed because there is no signature against the execution clause. It is also contended that the signature is actually in place of initials for initialing the date "27th" which is to be in the handwriting amongst the other typewritten portion. The deceased has initialled all the five earlier pages of the will if she had to initial against the date, she would have put her initials B.B.K. against it. That has not been put because she has executed the will itself right near the date. The evidence of the attesting witness shows that the date is put by him. The handwriting in the date as also the name and designation and address of the attesting witness is identical. The attesting witness signed after the deceased signed in his presence and after the other attesting witness also signed. Hence he, as an Advocate, put the date and signed the document attesting the signature of the deceased put in his presence. The deceased could, therefore, not have initialled the date at all. The attesting witness is not required to and is not initialled the date. 14. The defendants have relied upon one agreement dated 14th June, 1988 a photocopy of which has been put in the evidence to show that the deceased as also the plaintiff and other family members initialled corrections in that document. Indeed that agreement is signed by the deceased, the plaintiff, defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 and one Ramnath B. Harlalka, the husband of defendant No. 2 in respect of certain shares in Khetan Business Corporation Pvt. Limited. The parties have initialled each page of the document not necessarily against the corrections or against any handwritten portion on each page, but at the foot of each page thereof. The reliance upon the document is, therefore, wholly misplaced. The parties have initialled each page of the document not necessarily against the corrections or against any handwritten portion on each page, but at the foot of each page thereof. The reliance upon the document is, therefore, wholly misplaced. It neither shows the imperative requirement of law to put initials against all corrections or handwritten portions, nor the practice of the deceased in doing so. In fact the handwriting in the date shows that the deceased could not have put her initials nor her entire signature against the date because the date was not put on the will when she executed it, it not even being a mandatory requirement. 15. The will is got registered by the deceased a few days after its execution. Hence the deceased admitted execution of the will. The deceased has signed in the Registrar's office before two witnesses. The Registrar has put his stamps on the will. The registration shows not only the execution of the will on 27th August, 2001 but the fact that the deceased attended the Registrar's office to admit that execution on 29th September, 2001. My attention has been drawn to the case of Rani Purnima Debi & Anr v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 567 to contend that registration of the will does not ipso facto prove the will. Indeed it is so. It is only an added circumstances to lend credence to the execution. 16. The plaintiff has shown the status of the deceased and her relationship with the defendants, more specially defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 being only a married daughter. The plaintiff has also been cross examined on wholly extraneous aspects of over a period of several dates with regard to the residence of the parties, the business of the family, the role of the deceased in the business, the registered office of the business, the working of the above trusts of the deceased some of the immovable properties of the deceased, the signing of cheques by the deceased etc. 17. The plaintiff has been questioned about the incidents that transpired resulting in the aforesaid complaints. The tenor of the cross examination shows the lack of any reason to lodge the complaint, but not the fact that they were registered by the deceased as also the plaintiff against defendant No. 1. 18. 17. The plaintiff has been questioned about the incidents that transpired resulting in the aforesaid complaints. The tenor of the cross examination shows the lack of any reason to lodge the complaint, but not the fact that they were registered by the deceased as also the plaintiff against defendant No. 1. 18. A reading of this evidence completely proves the valid execution of the will. Hence Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. 19. Issue No. 2: It is for the defendants to prove fraud or coercion, the particulars of which must be provided by the defendants upon whom the onus lies. There is no evidence whatsoever on that count. The fraud or coercion is not proved. Even the relationship sought to be suggested in the cross examination does not show any fraud or coercion that could have been practiced by the petitioner upon the deceased to make her execute her will about six years after the incident. Consequently, issue No. 2 is answered in the negative. 20. Issue No. 3: Hence the will is required to be and is probated. 21. The Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court shall issue the probate of the will of the deceased Bhagwati Bai B. Khetan dated 27th August, 2001. Drawn up decree is dispensed with.