Chauthi v. D.D.C. and 10 Ors

Reserved on: 16.11.2023 Delivered on: 22.11.2023 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *** Court No. 48 *** Case :- WRIT - B No. - 40722 of 2014 Chauthi ……..

Petitioner Through :- Sri Surendra Nath Chauhan, Advocate Vs. D.D.C. and 10 others …….. Respondents Through:- S.C., Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Advocate Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶1Heard Sri Surendra Nath Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for contesting respondent and learned Standing Counsel for State.

¶2The present case is arising out of a proceeding under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. In first round of litigation, the Consolidation Officer decided it by an order dated 20.07.1979, however, an appeal thereof was allowed and matter was remitted back to the Consolidation Officer to decide it afresh.

¶3Subsequently, the Consolidation Officer on basis of rival pleadings, framed following three issues :- "1. क्या चौथी हीरा मृतक का लड़का व उत्तराधिकारी है?

¶2क्या घूरा हीरा मृतक का वारिरस जरिरये वसीयत है?

¶3क्या चौथी के पि ता का नाम जवापिहर है?"

¶4The Consolidation Officer after considering rival documents as well as statements of witnesses on record held that petitioner (Chauthi) was son of Jawahir and was not son of Heera as alleged by him and that registered Will dated 26.06.1976 executed by Heera in favour of his real brother Ghoora was considered to be proved in accordance with law. The relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter :- "चौथी का कथन है पिक वह जवाहर का लड़का नहीं है बल्कि#क हीरा का लड़का है। इस सम्बन् में उसने दुखन्ती, झंगटू, शीऊ व चौथी का बयान कराया है तथा मतदाता सूची व रिरवार रजिजस्टर की नकल दाखिखल पिकया है। चौथी का यह भी कथन है पिक घूरा द्वारा खिलखिखत रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा पिदनांक 26.06.76 पिवश्वास करने योग्य नहीं है। चौथी ने जो रिरवार रजिजस्टर व मतदाता सूची की नकल दाखिखल पिकया है उसमे उसकी वल्कि#दयत हीरा अंपिकत है। चौथी द्वारा ये दाखिखल नकलें वाद की है तथा मुकदमा बहुत हले से चल रहा है। घूरा ने भी रिरवार रजिजस्टर दाखिखल पिकया है जो सन् 09.01.77 का जारी है तथा मतदाता सूची भी दाखिखल पिकया है घूरा द्वारा दाखिखल ुराने रिरवार रजिजस्टर में जो प्रान द्वारा प्रमाणिAत भी है चौथी की वल्कि#दयत जवापिहर अंपिकत है। चौथी ने यूपिनयन बैंक ऑफ इंधिर्डया की ासबुक भी दाखिखल पिकया है। चौथी का यह भी कथन है पिक वह ढा़ खिलखा नहीं था तथा टी

. सी . उसके नाम की गलत दाखिखल है जबपिक घूरा द्वारा दाखिखल चौथी की

टी . सी . उसके बच न के समय की है। उस समय यह पिववाद भी नही था न तो इसकी

कोई सम्भावना थी इसखिलए चौथी की गलती टी

. सी . होने या दज9 कराने का प्रश्न ही नहीं

उठता। वह यानी चौथी जानबूझ कर अ ने को ढा़

- खिलखा व साक्षर होने का तथ्य

णिM ाता है जिजसका कोई औधिचत्य नही है। बीस गुना जमा करने से सम्बल्किन्त मुकदमा नं० - 335

जो तहसील न्यायालय में चला था

, में चौथी ने आ खित्त दाखिखल पिकया था

, जिजसकी नकल घूरा के तरफ से दाखिखल की गयी है। उक्त नकल में भी चौथी का अंगूठा पिनशान अंपिकत नहीं है। बल्कि#क देखने से ऐसा लगता है पिक चौथी ने ही उसे खिलखा था। इस प्रकार इस मुकदमें मे मात्र दो पिबन्दु मुख्य रू से है एक तो यह पिक क्या हीरा ने रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा घूरा के हक में सम् ापिदत पिकया था तथा दूसरा पिक क्या चौथी हीरा का लड़का है या जवापिहर का यपिद यह बात स् ष्ट हो जाती है पिक हीरा ने वसीयतनामा पिनयमानुसार खिलखा था तो अन्य बातों का कोई अथ9 नहीं रह जाता। जहां तक चौथी के वल्कि#दयत के सम्बन् में पिववाद है तथा इस सम्बन् मे उभय क्षों द्वारा जो भी साक्ष्य व अणिभलेख प्रस्तुत पिकये गये हैं उनको देखने से यह स् ष्ट हो रहा है पिक घूरा के तरफ से दाखिखल सम् ूA9 अणिभलेखीय साक्ष्य बहुत हले के है तथा चौथी के बच न से भी संबंधित है तथा चौथी की तरफ से प्रस्तुत अणिभलेखीय साक्ष्य सब बहुत बाद के या मुकदमा दौरान के हैं जिजन र भरोसा नहीं पिकया जा सकता। साक्ष्यों के आार र यह स् ष्ट व सापिबत है पिक चौथी जवापिहर का ही लड़का है तथा उसने वाद में सम् खित्त के लालच मे हर जगह अ नी वल्कि#दयत हीरा अंपिकत कराने का प्रयास पिकया है। इस प्रकार उभय क्षों के अधिवक्ताओं की खिलखिखत बहस तथा त्रावली में उ लब् जबानी व अणिभलेखीय साक्ष्यों के ूA9 अवलोकन के उ रान्त में इस पिनष्कर्ष9 र हुंचता हूं पिक हीरा ने रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा पिदनांक

26.06.76

पिनयमानुसार एवं स्वाभापिवक रू से घूरा अ ने सगे भाई

के क्ष में उसके सेवाभाव से खुश होकर सम् ापिदत पिकया जिजसे पिनयमानुसार इस न्यायालय में हाजिसया के गवाहान व लेखक वसीका नवीस का बयान कराकर सापिबत भी कराया गया है। ुराने प्रान ने इस न्यायालय में बयान पिकया पिक चौथी, जवापिहर का लड़का नही बल्कि#क हीरा का लड़का है जबपिक उसने कलेक्टर के न्यायालय में अ ने द्वारा प्रस्तुत वाद में स्वयं चौथी की वल्कि#दयत जवापिहर अंपिकत पिकया। इसखिलए उसके इस कथन

र भरोसा नहीं पिकया जा सकता। वत9मान प्रान ने इस न्यायालय में आकर इस आशय की बयान ह#फी पिदया है पिक चौथी जवापिहर का लड़का है न पिक हीरा का। त्रावली के सम् ूA9 साक्ष्यों के रिरप्रेक्ष्य में यह भी सापिबत है पिक चौथी जवापिहर का ही लड़का है। इस प्रकार रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा पिदनांक 26.06.76 के आार र हीरा मृतक का कानूनी व जायज वारिरस, उसका सगा भाई घूरा है तद्नुसार तीनों वाद पिबन्दु तय पिकये गये। " (Emphasis supplied)

¶5Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 21.6.1997 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:- " त्रावली के अवलोकन से यह स् ष्ट है पिक घूरा ने अ ने साक्ष्य में असल दस्तावेज रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा पिदनांक 26.06.76 दाखिखल पिकया है जो हीरा ुत्र बलदेव द्वारा घूरा ुत्र बलदेव के क्ष में खिलखा गाय है। इस वसीयतनामा के हाजिसया के गवाह गनेश

ुत्र खर त्तू तथा बच्चन व वसीयतनामा के लेखक व वसीका नवीस ुत्र खर त्तू तथा बच्चन व वसीयतनामा के लेखक व वसीका नवीस श्री सुदामा सिंसह का भी बयान कराया गया है। रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा पिदनांक

26.06.76

ारा

- 68

साक्ष्य अधिपिनयम के

अऩुसार पिनयमानुसार सापिबत कराया गया है। मैं घूरा के पिवद्वान अधिवक्ता के इस तक9 से सहमत हूँ पिक पिनयमानुसार रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा सापिबत है और उसे न मानने का कोई प्रश्न ही नहीं है। त्रावली से यह सापिबत है पिक हीरा ने रजिजस्टर्ड9 वसीयतनामा घूरा के क्ष में खिलखा जिजसको सापिबत कराया गया है अतः अन्य बातो का कोई अथ9 नहीं रह जाता है। यपिद यह मान भी खिलया जाय पिक चौथी हीरा के लड़के है जैसा पिक उनके पिवद्वान अधिवक्ता द्वारा तक9 पिदया जा रहा है और कहा गया पिक प्राकृधितक उत्तराधिकारी के रहते वसीयत‌का‌कोई‌लाभ‌नहीं ‌वि मल‌सकता‌ह।ै ‌लेवि कन‌चविूं क‌वसीयतनामा‌उ्त रवादी‌द्व ारा जि सद्ध ‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌और‌उक्त ‌वसीयतनामा‌को‌अपीलान् ट‌द्व ारा‌दीवानी‌न् यायालय‌में चैलेन् ज‌नहीं ‌वि कया‌गया‌है‌अतः‌उसे‌न‌मानने‌का‌कोई‌कारण‌नहीं ‌ह।ै ‌वि वद्व ान‌चकबन् दी अधि धकारी‌ने‌वसीयतनामा‌के ‌आधार‌पर‌जो‌घूरा‌पुत्र ‌बलदेव‌को‌हीरा‌पुत्र ‌बलदेव‌के स् थान‌पर‌वारि रस‌माना‌है‌वह‌सही‌है‌इसमें‌वि कसी‌परि रवतरन‌की‌आवश् यकता‌नहीं ‌ह।ै आदेश‌कायम‌रहने‌योग् य‌ह।ै ‌ अतः‌अपील‌खारि रज‌की‌जाती‌ह।ै ‌वाद‌अमलदरामद‌दालि खल‌दफ् तर‌हो।" (Emphasisosupplied)

¶6TheorevisionopetitionothereofowasorejectedobyotheoRevisionaloAuthority vide o order o dated o 23.01.2014, o and o relevant o part o thereof o is o mentioned hereinaftero:- "उभयपक्ष ों ‌द्व ारा‌लि ललि खत‌तकर ‌दालि खल‌वि कया‌गया‌ह।ै ‌मुख् य‌वि ववाद‌मात्र ‌यह‌है‌वि क‌चौथी हीरा‌का‌पुत्र ‌है‌अथवा‌जवावि हर‌का।‌दसू रा‌वि बन् द‌ु यह‌है‌वि क‌क् या‌हीरा‌ने‌अपने‌भाई‌घूरा को‌रजि जस् टड् र‌वसीयतनामा‌वि नष् पावि दत‌वि कया‌ह।ै ‌ पत्र ावली‌मे‌जो‌साक्ष य‌प्र स् तुत‌वि कये‌गये‌है‌जि जसमें‌प्र ाथवि मक‌पाठशाला‌की ‌टी०सी०‌दालि खल‌की‌गयी‌है‌तथा‌श्र ी‌कृ ष् ण‌राय‌‌,‌o‌प्र धानाध् यापक‌को‌टी०सी०‌रजि जस् टर‌ के ‌साथ‌तलब‌करके ‌उनका‌बयान‌कराया‌गया‌ह‌ै जि जसमें‌स् पष्ट ‌रू प‌से‌चौथी‌के ‌वि पता‌का नाम‌जवावि हर‌अविं कत‌ह।ै ‌यह‌एक‌ऐसा‌अकाट्य ‌साक्ष य‌है‌जि जसके ‌वि वरू द्ध ‌अन् य‌कोई साक्ष य‌पत्र ावली‌पर‌उपलब् ध‌नही‌ह।ै ‌घूरा‌द्व ारा‌जि जलाधि धकारी‌न् यायालय‌में‌गांव‌सभा ‌बनाम‌चौथी‌धार‌ा‌-o198o(4)‌o‌के ‌अंतगरत‌एक‌वाद‌संस्कि स् थत‌वि कया‌गया‌था‌जि जसकी‌नकल‌ ‌वि दनांक‌‌03.03.86‌o‌में‌नायब‌तहसीलदार‌की‌आख् या‌वि दनांक‌‌17.04.86‌o‌से‌स् पष्ट ‌है‌वि क‌ ‌चौथी‌के ‌वि पता‌का‌नाम‌जवावि हर‌ह।ै ‌इसी‌प्र कार‌तहसील‌में‌‌20‌o‌गुना‌लगान‌जमा‌करने‌स‌े ‌संबंधि धत‌चलने‌वाले‌वाद‌हीरा‌बनाम‌चौथी‌मु०नं०‌‌-335 ‌o‌हीरा‌का‌बयान‌वि दनांक‌ o21.07.76ooको‌हआ‌ह।ै ‌जि जसकी‌नकल‌दालि खल‌की‌गयी‌है‌और‌जि जसमें‌हीरा‌ने‌स् वयoंु चौथी‌को‌जवावि हर‌का‌पुत्र ‌होना‌बताया‌ह।ै ‌कोई‌भी‌वि पता‌अपने‌जायज‌पुत्र ‌को‌वि कसी दसर‌े का‌पुत्र ‌क् यों ‌बतायेगा।‌ू वि नगरानीकतार‌चौथी‌की‌तरफ‌से‌जो‌साक्ष य‌प्र स् तुत‌वि कये‌गये‌है‌वे‌सारे‌साक्ष य मुकदमे‌के ‌दौरान‌वि नर्मि मत‌वि कये‌गये‌है‌जबवि क‌उ्त रदाता‌के ‌सारे‌साक्ष य‌मुकदमें‌के ‌पूवर‌के ह।ै ‌सबसे‌बड् ा‌प्र माण‌तो‌यही‌है‌वि क‌स् वयं‌हीरा‌एक‌अन् य‌मुकदमें‌में‌चौथी‌को‌जवावि हर का ुत्र कहते हैं उनका यह बयान एक स्वतंत्र बयान है जिजसे साक्ष्य अधिपिनयम के अऩ्तग9त स्वीकार पिकया जायेगा। कोई भी पि ता अ ने ुत्र को सहजभाव से अस्वीकार नही करता। इस प्रकार स् ष्ट है पिक चौथी हीरा के ुत्र नहीं थे, अपि तु उनके पि ता का नाम जवापिहर था। ग्राम पिबज ुरा की उद्धरA खतौनी के खाता क्रमांक 66 र चौथी ुत्र हीरा का नाम अंपिकत है रन्तु इसी स्थान र ग्राम सरहरा जमीन सरहरा के उद्धरA खतौनी के खाता क्रमांक 116 र सारे खातेदारों का नाम अंपिकत है जिजसमें चौथी ुत्र जवापिहर का नाम अंपिकत है। ग्राम सरहरा जमीन सरहरा की उद्धरA खतौनी पिदनांक

17.12.13 की है जो एकदम नवीन खतौनी है। पिनष्कर्ष9 यह है पिक पिकसी व्यपिक्त द्वारा कोई लाभ अर्जिजत करने के उद्देश्य से पिकसी दस्तावेज अथवा अणिभलेख में अ ने पि ता का नाम कुM और खिलख देता है तो उससे उसका पि तृत्व नहीं बदलेगा। यहीं र सबसे बड़ा साक्ष्य स्वयं हीरा का वह ब्यान है जिजसमें उसने चौथी को अ ना ुत्र स्वीकार ही नहीं पिकया है। जहां तक वसीयतनामे का प्रश्न है वसीयतनामा ंजीकृत है और यह इसके सीमान्त साधिक्षयों एवं लेखक द्वारा भली-भांधित प्रमाणिAत कराया गया है और ऐसा कोई संदेह उत् न्न नही हुआ है जिजससे यह स् ष्ट हो पिक हीरा ने अ ने भाई घूरा के क्ष में वसीयतनामा न खिलखा हो। ऐसी ल्किस्थधित में वसीयतनामा भी युपिक्तयुक्त सन्देहों से रे

ूA9तया प्रमाणिAत है। इस सम्बन् में पिनगरानीकता9 द्वारा दी गयी आर०र्डी० 1998 ेज 390 की व्यवस्था इस र लागू नहीं होती है। अतः सहायक बन्दोबस्त अधिकारी चकबन्दी के आदेश में हस्तक्षे की कोई आवश्यकता प्रतीत नहीं होती है। पिनगरानी बलहीन है पिनरस्त पिकये जाने योग्य है। " (Emphasis supplied)

¶7Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that documentary evidences submitted on behalf of petitioner that he was son of Heera were not considered in its correct perspective and all three authorities have wrongly placed reliance on documentary evidence submitted on behalf of respondents.

¶8Learned counsel further submitted that relevant aspect of case that executor of Will was not empowered to execute it since that he was not owner of land in dispute, was not taken note of. That the Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority has merely upheld findings returned by the Consolidation Officer without even referring grounds taken by petitioner in appeal as well as in revision.

¶9Learned counsel has referred documentary evidence and part of statement of witnesses examined on his behalf.

¶10Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondents has submitted that since all three authorities have returned concurrent findings against petitioner, therefore, this Court may interfere only when findings returned by all three authorities are perverse or beyond jurisdiction but both factors are absent in present case.

¶11Learned counsel further submitted that documentary evidences submitted by respondents were more reliable and, therefore, they were rightly considered and accepted by all three authorities. He further submitted that a registered Will was duly proved in accordance with provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶12Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶13In the above factual and legal background that all three authorities under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act have returned concurrent findings against petitioner, therefore, in view judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Krishnanand (Dead) through legal representatives and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (2015) 1 SCC 553, this Court could interfere with it only when findings are perverse or passed beyond jurisdiction. The relevant part of Krishnanand (Dead) through legal representatives and others (supra) is reproduced hereinafter:- "12. The High Court has committed an error in reversing the findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that there was a partition. No doubt, the High Court did so in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised for reappreciating the evidence and arrival of findings of facts unless the authority which passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction to render the finding or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. In the present case, though the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the authorities below and came to the opposite conclusion on matter of facts, the High Court did not do so on the ground that the authorities below acted in excess of their jurisdiction or without jurisdiction or that the finding is vitiated by perversity.

¶13We are of the view that the High Court ought not to have entered into reappreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below, especially since the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor acted perversely. The High Court has nowhere stated that it was of the view that there is any perversity, much less the High Court failed to demonstrate any such circumstances." (Emphasis Supplied)

¶14I have carefully perused the impugned orders and as referred above, the Consolidation Officer has considered rival submissions on 'facts as well as on law' to decide three issues referred above. The petitioner, in order to substantiate his case that he is son of Heera, has recorded statements of 'Dukhanti, Jhangtu, Shiv and of himself as well as submitted documentary evidences such as a copy of Family Register and a copy of Voter List wherein name of his father was shown as Heera.

¶15Per contra, contesting respondents have submitted documentary evidence in support of their submission that petitioner was son of Jawahir such as transfer certificate issued from the school where petitioner studied, duly proved by Principal of school.

¶16A copy of order dated 17.4.1986 passed in a case filed under Section 194 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 wherein the 'Pradhan' of Gram Sabha has mentioned that father of petitioner was Jawahir was also placed on record. The Consolidation Officer has recorded statements of scriber and witnesses to Will and a reasoned finding was returned that registered Will was held to be proved.

¶17In order to consider the rival submission on first issue whether petitioner was son of Heera or Jawahir, I have carefully perused the findings returned by all three authorities which are produced in preceding paragraphs. The authorities have placed more reliance on a transfer certificate of petitioner duly issued by school and which was proved by statement of Principal of concerned school. Such document could not be doubted since it was an old document when no circumstances exists to record a wrong parentage. It would also be relevant that Heera in other proceeding has denied that petitioner was his son and said document was placed on record. There was ground for a father to deny that petitioner was not his son.

¶18So far as contention of petitioner that he is uneducated person would not be sufficient to make doubt on transfer certificate and petitioner has also not come up with any documentary evidence which could contradict said document. In addition to above document, there are orders of the Court and statement of 'Pradhan' also recorded in other proceedings that petitioner was son of Jawahir and was not son of Heera.

¶19The petitioner has placed reliance on a copy of Family Register and a Voter List but as recorded by the Consolidation Officer, it was issued on

09.01.1977 i.e. at a belated stage without any support of its basis and, therefore, it might be a newly created document and has held in case of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., (2019) 12 SCC 370, an educational document would be considered to be more reliable document. In these circumstances, statement of witnesses would have lesser evidentiary value, therefore, I do not find that there was any perversity in findings returned by all three authorities on this issue.

¶20Counsel for petitioner has not seriously disputed execution of Will and that it was not proved in accordance with law as specifically held by the Consolidation Officer and further upheld by Appellate as well as Revisional Authority also that Will was duly proved by its scriber and its attesting witnesses. Heera has executed his Will to his real brother Ghoora. An attempt was made that Heera was not competent to execute the Will since he was not bhumidhar of chak allotted to him on the date of execution of Will, however, it would also not have any effect since petitioner has failed to prove that he was son of Heera.

¶21However, since all the materials were considered by three authorities and no suspicious circumstances has been brought on record to doubt Will as well as that issue raised in regard to competence of executor of Will does not appears to be sufficient since proceedings were initiated for Bhumidhari Sanad, therefore, it would not be a sufficient ground that Will suffered with suspicious circumstances. In this regard, few paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumari and Others Vs. Surinder Pal Sharma, (2021) 14 SCC 500 would be relevant :- "14. Sections 68 and 71 of the Evidence Act, which relate to proof of documents required by law to be attested, read as under: "68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. —If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. ***

¶71Proof when attesting witness denies the execution.—If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence." xxx xxx

¶16After referring to H. Venkatachala Iyengar (supra), this Court in Jaswant Kaur (supra) had laid down the following propositions of law: "10…..(1) Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.

(2) Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.

(3) Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.

(4) Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.

(5) It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.

(6) If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." (Emphasis supplied)

¶22In view of above discussion, no circumstances exist which could make the Will surrounded by any suspicious circumstances.

¶23In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.11.2023 P. Pandey [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad