ORDER : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8518 OF 2011 1. This is a plaintiff’s appeal against the decree of reversal passed by the First Appellate Court i.e. the High Court. The suit was for partition of a house property, details of which are mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff claimed to be the first wife of the owner of the property i.e. N. Kapinipathaiah. The defendants 1, 2 and 3 in the suit are the son and daughters from the second wife of N. Kapinipathaiah. 2. According to defendant No.1 he had received the suit property under a Will executed by his father and he had paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the sisters pursuant to the said Will. 3. The defendant No.1 had sought to prove the said Will by examining DW-2, who was a neighbour of the executor of the Will and was also an attesting witness to the Will. 4. The stand taken by the plaintiff is that the Will was executed in suspicious circumstances and that the executor N. Kapinipathaiah was suffering from an advance stage of Parkinson’s disease. The same was held by the First Court to have not been proved by the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Hence, the decree of reversal. 5. Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the High Court has gone seriously wrong in casting the burden to proof of incapacity to execute the Will on the plaintiff. We disagree. 6. Reading the evidence of DW-2, it is clear that he is not only a natural witness but has proved the execution of the Will by N. Kapinipathaiah; the signatures of N. Kapinipathaiah and also the signatures of the other attesting witnesses. If that is so, the burden would shift to the plaintiff to prove the alleged incapacity on the basis of which the plaintiff had challenged the Will. No evidence to the aforesaid effect was forthcoming. We, therefore, cannot find any fault with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal, therefore, has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed. The order passed by the High Court is affirmed. CIVIL APPEAL NO.8519 OF 2011 In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.8518 of 2011 the present appeal has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.