Will proof and blending doctrine: execution and attestation upheld, but separate property was not converted into joint family property.

A will is proved by establishing due execution, attestation, testamentary capacity and the testator's free volition under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act, and any suspicious circumstances must be dispelled by cogent evidence. On the evidence described, the attesting witnesses supported execution and the testator was found to be of sound disposing mind, so the will was upheld as the deceased's last valid will. The doctrine of blending applies only where separate property is voluntarily and unequivocally thrown into the common stock in the presence of a coparcenary; a mere declaration, including one made for tax purposes, is insufficient. The properties were therefore held not to be joint Hindu family property and not available for partition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the propounded will was duly executed and attested and had been proved in law despite alleged suspicious circumstances. (ii) Whether the properties in dispute had been blended into joint Hindu family property so as to become available for partition.

Issue (i): Whether the propounded will was duly executed and attested and had been proved in law despite alleged suspicious circumstances.

Analysis: The propounder of a will must prove due execution, attestation, testamentary capacity, and the testator's free volition in the manner required by the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act. Where suspicious circumstances are pleaded or appear from the record, the propounder must dispel them by cogent evidence to satisfy the conscience of the Court. On the evidence, the attesting witnesses supported execution, the testator was found to be in a sound disposing state of mind, and the alleged suspicious circumstances were not sufficient to displace the proof of due execution.

Conclusion: The will was duly proved and was held to be the last valid will of the deceased.

Issue (ii): Whether the properties in dispute had been blended into joint Hindu family property so as to become available for partition.

Analysis: The doctrine of blending applies only where a coparcenary exists and the owner of separate property voluntarily and unequivocally abandons separate rights by throwing the property into the common stock. A mere declaration, especially one made for tax purposes, is insufficient if the surrounding circumstances do not establish a clear intention to convert separate property into joint family property. On the facts, there was no pre-existing coparcenary property, no established joint Hindu family property at the relevant time, and the contemporaneous materials showed that the properties continued to be treated as the deceased's separate properties.

Conclusion: The properties were not blended into joint Hindu family property and were not available for partition as joint family assets.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the will failed, while the claim based on blending of property also failed. The plaintiff's suit could not survive and the decree under appeal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A will is proved by showing due execution, attestation, testamentary capacity, and free volition, and alleged suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily removed by the propounder; separate property can become joint family property only by a clear and voluntary act of blending where a coparcenary already exists.

---