JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. Defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 92/2006 on the files of the Sub Court, Ottapalam are the appellants in this second appeal and they assail preliminary decree of partition passed by the learned Sub Judge and the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 78/2011 on the files of Additional District Judge, Ottapalam whereby the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the verdict of the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th defendant and the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent, the 1st plaintiff. No others appeared. 3. The short facts in this case are as follows: Originally, the suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties by the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of P.S. Ramaswami Pattar Pattamali, who died intestate in the month of May, 1977. The plaintiffs, 1st defendant, P.R. Sreenivasan and P.R. Natarajan are the children of P.S. Ramaswami Pattar Pattamali. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 4 and 5 attempted to grab entire plaint schedule properties by concocting documents and the demand for partition of the share entitled to the plaintiffs was denied. Accordingly, plaintiffs claimed partition of the plaint schedule properties to get 8 out of 20 shares to them. Similarly, the 1st and 2nd defendants would get 4/20 shares each and defendants 3 to 6 would get 4/20 shares. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 did not appear before the court. Accordingly, they were set ex-parte. 5. Defendants 3 to 6 filed written statement. According to defendants 4 and 5, defendants 1 and 2 had assigned their undivided right in the plaint schedule properties to defendants 4 and 5 by executing release deed Nos.3958/05 and 3959/05 of Kadambazhippuram S.R.O. Further, P.R. Natarajan-husband of defendant No. 4 and the father of defendants 5 and 6, executed a Will in favour of defendants 4 and 5 and given the share due to Natarajan in favour of defendants 4 and 5. Therefore, the right of the 6th defendant to get share in the plaint schedule property was denied. 6. The court below raised necessary issues and recorded evidence. The 1st plaintiff got examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW-1 to DW-4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. 7. 6. The court below raised necessary issues and recorded evidence. The 1st plaintiff got examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. DW-1 to DW-4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendants. 7. On evaluation of evidence, the trial court addressed the dispute mainly rest upon the legality of the Will marked as Ext.B7, alleged to be executed by Natarajan in favour of D4 and D5, then the trial court disbelieved the version of DW-2, the attesting witness and also found doubtful circumstances regarding execution of Ext.B7 and finally the trial court did not accept Ext.B7 Will. Accordingly, preliminary decree of partition was passed as under: (1) The plaint schedule properties shall be divided into twenty equal shares taking into consideration of the fertility of soil and convenience of enjoyment and the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to get 8/20 shares, defendants No. 4 and 5 are jointly entitled to get 10/20 shares and Defendants 3 and 6 entitled to get 1/20 share each. (2) Defendants 4 and 5 are liable to pay share of profit to the plaintiffs and D6. The quantum of the same shall be decided in the final decree proceedings. (3) The house situated in the plaint schedule property shall be allotted to the defendants 3 to 5. They are liable to pay the value of the same to the other sharers according to their share. (4) The parties are at liberty to file an application for passing final decree for partition. (5) The cost of the suit shall come out of the estate. (6) The suit is adjourned sine die. 8. Defendants 4 and 5 filed A.S. No. 78/2011 before the District Court, Ottapalam, and assailed the trial court verdict. The learned Additional District Judge as per judgment dated 14.05.2012 dismissed the appeal. 9. On hearing both sides, the Second Appeal stands admitted, formulating the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether defendants 4 and 5 proved the execution of Ext.B7 Will in tune with the mandate of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, eschewing doubtful circumstances surmounting the Will? (2) Whether the courts below legally correct in holding that Ext.B7 Will would not confer title upon defendants 4 and 5 in respect of the share of the 6th defendant? 10. (2) Whether the courts below legally correct in holding that Ext.B7 Will would not confer title upon defendants 4 and 5 in respect of the share of the 6th defendant? 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for D4 and D5 vehemently argued that the trial court and the appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence of DW-2 – the attesting witness, who practically supported the execution of Ext.B7 Will in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. 11. The learned counsel placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in Gopal Swaroop vs. Krishna Murari Mangal and Others, 2011 (1) KLJ (NOC) 48 to appraise the point that the nature of proof mandated by one among the attesting witnesses to a Will should be decided by applying the test of satisfaction of prudent mind of the parties. The relevant paragraphs in the above judgment are paragraphs 16 and 17 and the same are as extracted hereunder: “16. That brings us to the third requirement, namely, that the Will must be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing and affixing his mark to the Will or has seen some other person signing in the presence and by the direction of the Testator. The deposition of Shri Vilas Tikhe in our opinion satisfies this requirement also in as much as the witness has in clear and unambiguous terms stated that not only he but Shri Manoj, the other attesting witness to the Will was also present at the time the Testator affixed his signature on the Will. It is noteworthy that, the above statement has not been questioned in cross examination nor any suggestion made to the effect that while Shri Vilas Tikhe, the witness may have been present, Manoj was not so present at the time the Will was signed by the Testator. As a matter of fact, the witness has made a categoric statement that Manoj met the Testator in the Court and was taken along and that not only at the time of signing of the Will by the Testator, but even before the Registrar, Manoj Kumar was present in person. The witness has while answering a question in crossexamination specifically stated that Manoj was present even at the time the witness signed the Will in question. 17. The witness has while answering a question in crossexamination specifically stated that Manoj was present even at the time the witness signed the Will in question. 17. On a careful and proper reading of the deposition of Shri Vilas Tikhe DW-2, we are satisfied that the requirement of attestation of the Will by two witnesses each of whom has seen the Testator signing or affixing his mark has been satisfied in the present case. So also the fourth requirement that the attesting witnesses sign the Will in the presence of the Testator stands firmly established. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench of the High Court fell in error in holding that the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act had not been satisfied in the instant case. As was observed by this Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , in the matter of proof of documents as in the case of the proof of Wills, it is idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied always is the test of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matters. Applying that test to the case at hand we have no manner of doubt that the Will executed by Shri Panna Lal which is a duly registered document is not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances of any kind and is proved to have been duly and properly executed.” 12. Another decision of the Apex Court reported in Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta, AIR 1955 SC 363 is also placed to substantiate the same point, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No. 9 held that there was no proof that the will was duly attested as required by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, and that it should therefore be held to be void. PWs 1 and 2 are the two attestors, and they stated in examination-in-chief that the testator signed the will in their presence, and that the attested his signature. They did not add that they signed the will in the presence of the testator. Now, the contention is that in the absence of such evidence, it must be held as that there was no due attestation. Both the Courts below have held against the appellant on this contention. They did not add that they signed the will in the presence of the testator. Now, the contention is that in the absence of such evidence, it must be held as that there was no due attestation. Both the Courts below have held against the appellant on this contention. The learned Judges of the High Court were of the opinion that as the execution and attestation took place at one sitting at the residence of PW1, where the testator and the witnesses had assembled by appointment, they must all of them have been present until the matter was finished, and as the witnesses were not cross-examined on the question of attestation, it could properly be inferred that there was due attestation. It cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because the witnesses did not state in examination-in-chief that they signed the will in the presence of the testator, there was no due attestation. It will depend on the circumstances elicited in evidence whether the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. This is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence. 13. The learned Senior Counsel read out the deposition of DW-2 to appraise the point that DW-2 gave evidence that the testator signed the Will in his presence. He also deposed that another attesting witness, Viswanathan and DW-2 signed the Will by using the same pen, to contend that the requirement under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act has been complied. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the propounder of the Will is duty bound to prove the Will free from any doubtful circumstances and, in fact, no doubtful circumstances attached to Ext.B7 and defendants 4 and 5 established that Ext.B7 Will is fully from doubtful circumstances. Therefore, the findings of the trial court and the appellate court on that ground are erroneous and against evidence brought into. According to the learned counsel, since the execution of Ext.B7 has been proved, the 6th defendant would not get share and, therefore, the preliminary decree of partition to be modified accordingly. 14. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the 6th defendant would submit that the trial court disbelieved, DW-2 and the appellate court also found that the evidence of DW-2 was not sufficient to prove the Will in question. 14. Repelling this contention, the learned counsel for the 6th defendant would submit that the trial court disbelieved, DW-2 and the appellate court also found that the evidence of DW-2 was not sufficient to prove the Will in question. It is also pointed out that DW-2 is a native of Salem and he reached at Mannarkad for the purpose of attesting Ext.B7 alone as per his evidence, during cross-examination. He also pointed out that at the same time, defendants 4 and 5 raised contention that when the 1st and 2nd defendants released their rights over the plaint schedule properties by executing Exts.B2 and B3 in favour of defendants 4 and 5, the witness in Exts.B2 and B3 is also DW-2. But this contention was denied by DW-2. Therefore, Ext.B7 Will is in the midst of doubts and propounders of the Will miserably failed to remove the doubtful circumstances surmounting the Will. 15. On perusal of the evidence of DW-2, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for defendants 4 and 5, he gave evidence that the testator put signature in Ext.B7, and Viswanathan also signed as a witness and both witnesses signed the Will by using the same pen. But regarding Exts.B2 and B3, the version of DW-2 is that he did not sign as a witness in any other documents except Ext.B7 and he did not reach Kerala prior to execution of Ext.B7. Thus the evidence of DW-2 would go to show that DW-2, a native of Salem, reached Mannarkadu for attesting Ext.B7 Will alone. In Paragraph 15 of the trial court judgment, the learned Munsiff observed that DW-2 is a witness produced by defendants 4 and 5 to speak falsehood before the court. It was found by the trial court that, as per the contention raised by the 6th defendant, Natarajan was residing at Elampulassery, whereas DW-2 is a resident of Salem. Therefore, there is no likelihood of any acquaintance between DW-2 and Natarajan, as deposed by DW-2. The relevant observations of the trial court in Paragraphs 15 and 16 are as under: “15. Further, D6 has got a contention that DW-2is a witness procured by D4 and D5 to speak falsehood before the court. The contention of D6 is that Natarajan was residing at Elampulassery, whereas, DW-2 is a a resident of Salem. The relevant observations of the trial court in Paragraphs 15 and 16 are as under: “15. Further, D6 has got a contention that DW-2is a witness procured by D4 and D5 to speak falsehood before the court. The contention of D6 is that Natarajan was residing at Elampulassery, whereas, DW-2 is a a resident of Salem. So, according to the 6 defendant, DW-2 cannot have any sort of acquaintance with Natarajan. The evidence of DW-2 is that he got acquaintance with Natarajan when he came and resided along with D4 Ramaswami who has been examined before the court as DW-1. But, then the evidence of DW-1 before the court is that usually his father Natarajan used to reside at Elampulassery and only occasionally he used to come and reside along with him at Salem. Even the evidence of DW-1 that Natarajan used to reside along with D4 has been vehemently disputed by the 1st defendant. That being so, the evidence of DW-2 that he has got close acquaintance with Natarajan, cannot be accepted as it is. The contention of D6 is that DW-2 is closely acquainted with DW-1 and therefore, deposed falsehood before the court to support the case of the 4th defendant. There are certain circumstances which would go to show that there was close acquaintance between DW-s 1 and 2. When specific question was put to DW-1 in the cross examination, he would say that DW-2 did not come to Kerala at any time to witness the execution of any document on his behalf. Even though this is the evidence of DW-1, a perusal of Exts.B2 and B3 which would go to show that, DW-2 is the witness No. 1 in both the documents. Exts.B2 and B3 were executed at Mannarkkad. The very fact that DW-2 who is a permanent resident of Salem was brought to Mannarkkad to witness the execution of documents in favour of D4, would go to show that the relationship between them is so strong and therefore, DW-2 would speak even falsehood to support the case of D4. So, I am of the view that the evidence of DW-2 is not sufficient to prove the execution of Ext.B7 Will. 16. Apart form DW-2, there is another witness shown as attesting witness to Ext.B7 Will. The other attesting witness is one Viswanathan. There is no explanation whatsoever regarding the other attesting witness. So, I am of the view that the evidence of DW-2 is not sufficient to prove the execution of Ext.B7 Will. 16. Apart form DW-2, there is another witness shown as attesting witness to Ext.B7 Will. The other attesting witness is one Viswanathan. There is no explanation whatsoever regarding the other attesting witness. So, the non examination of the other attesting witness is a circumstance which would speak against the execution of Ext.B7 Will. The scribe of the document was also not examined. The evidence of DW-1 is that Ext.B7 Will was written by T.S. Kuppuraj, a practising lawyer and Notary Public at Salem. Anyway, there is nothing in Ext.B7 Will to show that it was scribed by Kuppuraj mentioned above. It is true that there is signature of Kuppuraj in Ext.B7 Will. The signature is not seen put by Kuppuraj as a person who witnessed the execution of the document. Further, when specific question was put to DW-1, he would say that even though the Will was prepared by Kuppuraj, it was typed by a Stenographer in the office of Kuppuraj. No steps has been taken to examine the Stenographer who allegedly typed Ext.B7 Will. So, I find that the propounder has not succeeded in proving the due execution and attestation of Ext.B7 Will. It is not only that the execution and attestation alone are disputed, even the signature found in Ext.B7 is disputed D6. The evidence of D6 is that, Ext.B7 does not contain the signature of her father. No evidence was produced by the propounder to prove that Ext.B7 contain the signature of P.R.Natarajan. In the cross examination, DW-I has stated that there are ration cards, election identity cards etc in the name of his father Natarajan with respect to his house situated at Elampulassery. The propounder has not produced any document containing the signature of Natarajan. So, there is no sufficient evidence before the court to show that Ext.B7 Will contains the signature of Natarajan, the alleged executant.” 16. The trial court also found that the propounder of a Will had a duty to show that at the time of execution of the Will, executant was in a sound state of mind. But DW-4, a neighbour of Natarajan, had given evidence that he was not in a good mental state of affairs at the time of execution of Ext.B7. The trial court also found that the propounder of a Will had a duty to show that at the time of execution of the Will, executant was in a sound state of mind. But DW-4, a neighbour of Natarajan, had given evidence that he was not in a good mental state of affairs at the time of execution of Ext.B7. The trial court also found that the propounder of the Will failed to prove the execution of the Will in exclusion of suspicious circumstances. 17. In paragraph No. 9 of the appellate judgment, the appellate Court discussed the evidence of DW-2, as argued by the learned counsel for defendants 4 and 5. However, the appellate court also found that since DW-2 did not witness the other attesting witness signing the Will, his evidence is not sufficient to prove the Will. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the appellate court judgment are extracted hereunder: (10) It is also to be noted that D6 could prove before the court below that DW-2 was not impartial and he had close connection with D4 and D5. DW-2, a resident of Salem was witness in Ext. B2 and B3, the release deeds executed by D1 and D2 in favour of D4 and D5 before SRO, Mannarkkad. In order to make DW-2 as an uninterested person, DW-I had deposed that DW-2 had never visited Kerala. All these facts will clearly show that DW-2 had some interest to support the case of D4 and D5 and so, his evidence cannot be believed. There was no explanation either from DW-1 or from DW-2 as to why a person settled at Salem was made a witness in documents executed at Mannarkkad. In these circumstances, non-examination of the other attester to Ext. B7 assumes importance. (11) It was specifically contended by D6 that her father was suffering from mental illness and so, it was impossible for him to execute a document like Ext. B7 on 5-5-2005. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Natarajan died in the month of May 2005. Though the lower court had found fault with D4 for not producing medical records to show that his father was having sufficient mental capacity to execute Ext. B7 on 5-5-2005. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Natarajan died in the month of May 2005. Though the lower court had found fault with D4 for not producing medical records to show that his father was having sufficient mental capacity to execute Ext. B7, in my view that approach appears to be incorrect as the burden was on D6 to prove that her father was not having the mental capacity to execute a will on 5-5- 2005. In fact, D6 had tried to discharge the burden cast upon her by way of examining DW-4, who had deposed that Natarajan was suffering from mental illness and occasionally, he even used to walk through the street naked. From a perusal of his deposition, I do not find any reason to disbelieve him.” 18. As regards to the mandate to prove the execution of a Will, the law is well settled. On reading Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the mandate that a person propounding the Will shall prove that the Will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act does not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness to be called for proving the due execution of the Will as envisaged in Section 63. Although Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that a Will has to be attested at least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a document, which is required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court. However, Section 68 provides that those who want to prove and establish a Will in a Court of law, to do so, by examining at least one attesting witness even though the Will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. But what is relevant and noteworthy is that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a Will. To put in other words, if one attesting witness can prove execution of the Will in terms of Clause (c) of Section 63, viz. attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of the other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of a Will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the Will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of attestation of the Will by the other witness also it falls short of attestation of Will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the Will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the Will, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to depose the attestation of the Will by the other witness, there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to depose the attestation of the Will by the other witness, there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said legal position emerges from the decisions reported in Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, 2003 KHC 808 : 2003(2) SCC 91 : AIR 2003 SC 761 , Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and Others, 2009 KHC 4790 : 2008 (15) SCC 365 : AIR 2009 SC 1389 : 2009 (2) CHN 41 : 2009 (2) GLR 1700 : 2009 (1) APLJ 6 : 2009 (1) SCALE 328 , Rur Singh and Others vs. Bacahan Kaur, 2009 KHC 4382 : 2009 (11) SCC 1 : 2009 (1) KLT SN 52 : 2009 (3) SCALE 508 , M.B. Ramesh (Dead) by LRs. vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (Dead) by LRs. (2013) 7 SCC 490 : AIR 2013 SC 2088 . 19. It is equally well settled that the burden to prove execution of Will and to show that it came out of free will of the testator is only on the propounder. A Will obtained by fraud, coercion or importunity is void under Section 61 of the Act. The testator, therefore, should have had necessary testamentary capacity to execute the Will and propounders claiming rights under the Will would have to establish that the testator was in sound disposing state of mind at the relevant period of time. The testator could be presumed to be of sound disposing state of mind when he was in a position to understand the nature and effect of the disposition he made and also when he acted on his own free will. If there are suspicious circumstances affecting the genuineness of Will, the burden is still on the propounder to remove them and explain the circumstances. Decisions reported in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, 1959 KHC 498 : AIR 1959 SC 443 : 1959 Supp. (1) SCR 426 : 1959 Mys L.J. 424, Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased and after him his Legal Representatives and Others, 1964 KHC 465 : AIR 1964 SC 529 , M.B. Ramesh (D) by LRs. vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by LRs. (1) SCR 426 : 1959 Mys L.J. 424, Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since Deceased and after him his Legal Representatives and Others, 1964 KHC 465 : AIR 1964 SC 529 , M.B. Ramesh (D) by LRs. vs. K.M. Veeraje Urs (D) by LRs. and Others, 2013 KHC 4372 : 2013 (2) KLJ 797 : 2013 (2) KLT SN 136 : AIR 2013 SC 2088 : 2013 (7) SCC 490 : 2013 (3) SCC (Civ) 576 : 2013 (4) KCCR 2945 : 2013 (4) ALD 104 : 2013 (127) AIC 155 : 2013 (3) CTC 650 : 2013 (99) ALR 487 and Natarajan vs. Sree Narayana D.S. Trust, 1995 KHC 399 : 1995 (2) KLT 862 : 1995 (2) KLJ 577 : ILR 1996 (1) Ker. 566 illustrated the said legal mandates. 20. When a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, the person propounding the Will has a very heavy burden to discharge. This has been authoritatively explained by the Apex Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma's case (supra). The Apex Court in paragraph 20 of the judgment held that in a case where the testator's mind is feeble and he is debilitated and there is no sufficient evidence as to the mental capacity of the testator or where the deposition in the Will is unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of the circumstances or it appears that the bequest in the Will is not the result of the testator's free will and mind, the court may consider that the Will in question is encircled by suspicious circumstances. The said ratio has been followed in Balathandayutham and Another vs. Ezhilarasan, (2010) 5 SCC 770 . 21. In the instant case, as submitted by the learned counsel for defendants 4 and 5, it cannot be laid down as a matter of law that because the witnesses did not state in examination in chief that they signed the Will in the presence of the testator and, therefore, there was no due attestation, it would depend on the circumstances elicited in evidence when the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. Definitely this is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence, as held by the Apex Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta (supra). 22. Now I shall examine the genesis of Ext.B7 Will. Definitely this is a pure question of fact depending on appreciation of evidence, as held by the Apex Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta (supra). 22. Now I shall examine the genesis of Ext.B7 Will. Here, Ext.B7 is not a registered Will. Ext.B7 Will was executed on 05.05.2005. After the execution of Ext.B7 on the 15th day i.e. on 20.05.2005, the testator died. DW-4 gave evidence that Natarajan was not in a good mental state of affairs to execute Ext.B7 at the relevant time, but no medical evidence forthcoming to see the said aspect with support of medical evidence. 23. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 6th defendant that on a perusal of the original Will Ext.B1 written in Tamil language, the signatures of Natarajan have significant difference. In this context it is relevant to refer a decision of the Apex Court reported in Murthy and Others vs. C. Saradambal and Others, (2021) 3 SCC 209 : AIR 2022 SC 167 wherein the Apex Court held as under: “23. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the Will: (i) The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature. (ii) The condition of the testator's mind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time. (iii) The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason. (iv) The dispositions may not appear to be the result of the testator's free will and mind. (v) The propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will. (vi) The testator used to sign blank papers. (vii) The Will did not see the light of the day for long. (viii) Incorrect recitals of essential facts.” 24. Turning back, Exts.B4 and B6 are the original documents written in Tamil and the crux of the documents is relinquishment of the right of the 6th defendant by her. Exts.B4(a) dated 19.08.2009 and B6(a) dated 12.05.2001 are the English translations of Exts.B4 and B6 respectively which are seriously disputed by the 6th defendant. (viii) Incorrect recitals of essential facts.” 24. Turning back, Exts.B4 and B6 are the original documents written in Tamil and the crux of the documents is relinquishment of the right of the 6th defendant by her. Exts.B4(a) dated 19.08.2009 and B6(a) dated 12.05.2001 are the English translations of Exts.B4 and B6 respectively which are seriously disputed by the 6th defendant. As per Ext.B4(a), as contended by the defendants, the 6th defendant stated that she fell in love with one Manikandan S/o M. Ganesan and decided to marry him. The family members or her brothers and other relatives had no right to decide on the marriage and the same was the sole decision of the 6th defendant. It seems that Ext.B6 (Ext.B6(a) its English translation) and Ext.B4 (Ext.B4(a) its English translation) were executed with a view to get relinquishment of the right of the 6th defendant in the property of Natarajan before his death. In view of the fact that Exts.B4 and B6 were intended to relinquish the chance of succession (spes successionis) by the 6th defendant, the learned Senior Counsel for defendants 4 and 5 fairly conceded to ignore these documents, since these documents have no legal sanctity, which espouses relinquishment of spes successionis. However, the learned counsel for the 6th defendant given emphasis to Exts.B4 and B6 to show the falsity of the recitals in Ext.B7 while attempting to show that Ext.B7 is a concocted document. The learned counsel for the 6th defendant read out the recitals in Ext.B7 and submitted that the same itself would go to show that the same is a concocted document, created by defendants 4 and 5 on 20.05.2005, after the death of Natarajan on 05.05.2005. The learned counsel pointed out that in Ext.B7 it was narrated that “where as my daughter N. Nagalakshmi, is married and her marriage was performed by me and I had provided her with adequate funds and jewels and she is well settled and happily living with her husband.” 25. The learned counsel for the 6th defendant submitted that as per Exts.B4 and B6, it could be gathered that the earlier marriage of the 6th defendant was collapsed and thereafter she married another person. The learned counsel for the 6th defendant submitted that as per Exts.B4 and B6, it could be gathered that the earlier marriage of the 6th defendant was collapsed and thereafter she married another person. On a perusal of the evidence of the 6th defendant, who was examined as DW-3, Nagalakshmi, it could be seen that DW-3 affirmed that her first marriage was with Murali Krishnan and thereafter there were difference of opinion and they separated. But the legal marriage not dissolved. During re-examination, DW-3 given evidence that her first husband Murali Krishnan died and she married Manikandan thereafter. Adverting to this argument, on close scrutiny of Exts.B4, B6 and B7 and the evidence of DW-1, it is not safe to see that DW-3 “is well settled and happily living with her husband” as stated in Ext.B7 and the same creates doubts in the execution of Ext.B7. 26. In the instant case, the gap between death of Natarajan and execution of Ext.B7 is only 15 days, as already pointed out. Though DW-4 given evidence that Natarajan was not in a good mental state of affairs to execute Ext.B7 Will, no medical evidence let in to prove the mental incapacity of Natarajan. Execution of Exts.B4 and B6, in fact, was denied by DW-3 at the time of her examination and she also even denied her signatures therein. Now the relevant question is whether Ext.B7 is free from doubtful circumstances surmounting the same? In this connection, going by Ext.B7 Will the address of Natarajan is shown as Elumbulacherry Amsam Desam Ottapalam Taluk, Palakkad District. 2 witnesses to the document are: (1) DW-4 Shami, S/o.Duraisamy, 3/108, B4, Bharathi Street, New Fairlands, Salem-16 and (2) Viswanathan, 12-V, Market Road, Opp. Head Post Office, Salem-1. Though Natarajan, who was residing at Ottappalam, was the executant, the 2 witnesses to Ext.B1 are from Salem. As I have already discussed, DW-4 Shami's version is that he reached Ottappalam in Kerala only for the purpose of signing Ext.B7 and he had denied the fact that he witnessed the execution of Exts.B2 and B3. So the very execution of Ext.B7 just before 15 days of the death of Natarajan at Ottappalam in the presence of 2 witnesses from Salem, that too, without executing a registered Will, is dubious, fishy and skeptical. The presence of DW-4 at the time of alleged execution of Ext.B7 is obviously doubtful. So the very execution of Ext.B7 just before 15 days of the death of Natarajan at Ottappalam in the presence of 2 witnesses from Salem, that too, without executing a registered Will, is dubious, fishy and skeptical. The presence of DW-4 at the time of alleged execution of Ext.B7 is obviously doubtful. Therefore, DW-4 is not a reliable witness to hold that as per the evidence of DW-4, defendants 4 and 5 proved the execution of Ext.B7 Will as mandated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Therefore, it could not be held that defendants 4 and 5 proved execution of Ext.B7 Will, eschewing doubtful circumstances surmounting the Will. Thus the trial court as well as the appellate court for justifiable reasons disbelieved Ext.B7 and granted partition after allotting share to the 6th defendant also, who succeeded Natarajan. Thus the question of law is answered holding that defendants 4 and 5 failed to prove execution of Ext.B7 Will in tune with the mandate of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act eschewing the doubtful circumstances surmounting the Will and, therefore, the courts below held so rightly and legally. For the reasons, the verdicts do not require any interference by this Court. 27. Hence, this Second Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. 28. Considering the nature of dispute, parties are directed to suffer their respective cost. 29. All pending Interlocutory Applications stand dismissed. 30. Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment to the courts below concerned for information and compliance.