Probate of a Will upheld where execution was proved and no suspicious circumstances were shown.

The grant of probate was upheld because the Will was duly proved and no suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution. The alleged exclusion of the testator's spouse and the other co-testator's husband did not, by itself, make the disposition unnatural. The Court noted that the co-testator was in a sound disposing state of mind when executing the Will and that no contemporaneous grievance had been raised by the husband. On that evidentiary basis, the probate courts were right to accept the Will and reject the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the grant of probate of the Will was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the Will was unnatural or surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the trial court and the High Court showed that the Will had been duly proved and that no suspicious circumstances surrounded its execution. The alleged exclusion of the testator's spouse and the husband of the other co-testator was not, by itself, sufficient to render the disposition unnatural. The Court also noted that the co-testator who allegedly disinherited her husband was found to be in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution, and no contemporaneous grievance had been raised by the husband. The probate courts had therefore rightly upheld the Will.

Conclusion: The challenge to the probate failed, and the grant of probate was upheld.

---