Suspicious circumstances in a Will defeat formal proof unless the propounder fully dispels doubts; remand was unnecessary.

A Will must be proved by due execution and attestation under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act, and any suspicious circumstances must be satisfactorily explained by the propounder. The Court found multiple cumulative irregularities on the face of the document, including inconsistent sheets, signatures, pens, unsigned pages, blank spaces, and unexplained recitals, which were not dispelled by the explanations offered. The Will was therefore not accepted as genuine. On remand, the Court held that where the record is complete and the appellate court can finally decide the matter on existing evidence, a fresh trial is unnecessary under Order XLI Rule 24 CPC, so no remand was called for.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the contested Will dated 20.05.1991 was proved to be the genuine last Will of the deceased; (ii) Whether the case called for remand to the Trial Court.

Issue (i): Whether the contested Will dated 20.05.1991 was proved to be the genuine last Will of the deceased.

Analysis: A Will must satisfy the requirements of due execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and proof under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Where suspicious circumstances surround the document, the propounder must remove all legitimate doubts to the satisfaction of the Court. The document here carried multiple unusual features on its face, including use of different sheets, irregular placement of signatures, use of different pens, unsigned pages, blank spaces, and unexplained recitals inconsistent with normal execution. These circumstances, taken cumulatively, seriously undermined the probative value of the document and the explanations offered did not dispel the suspicion.

Conclusion: The Will was not proved to be genuine and the finding against the assessee side was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the case called for remand to the Trial Court.

Analysis: Remand is warranted only where a retrial is necessary or where the appellate court cannot finally determine the matter on the evidence already on record. When the record is sufficient and the parties have had full opportunity to lead evidence, the appellate court may decide the matter finally under Order XLI Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Here, the evidentiary record was complete, the alleged deficiencies did not require a fresh trial, and remand would have served no useful purpose.

Conclusion: No remand was called for.

Final Conclusion: The appellate interference with the trial decree was upheld, the challenge to the genuineness of the Will failed, and the matter was finally concluded without remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A Will surrounded by real and cumulative suspicious circumstances cannot be accepted as genuine merely on formal proof of execution and attestation unless the propounder satisfactorily dispels those suspicions; remand is unnecessary where the appellate court can finally decide the case on the existing evidence.

---