Probate of a will fails when unproved appendices are essential and suspicious circumstances remain unresolved.

A will that makes its operative dispositions dependent on unproved appendices is incomplete and cannot sustain probate unless the appendices are shown to form part of the testamentary instrument and to have existed at execution. Here, the appendices were not proved as incorporated documents, so the testamentary scheme failed for incompleteness. The will also remained unproved because suspicious circumstances, including beneficiary involvement, custody issues, non-examination of a key witness, and an unequal detailed distribution, were not dispelled. In probate proceedings, formal proof alone is insufficient where suspicion exists; the propounder must satisfy the court that the will was genuinely and duly executed. Probate and letters of administration were therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appendices referred to in the will formed an integral part of the testamentary instrument and were proved in accordance with law. (ii) Whether the will was established as a genuine and duly executed document in the face of suspicious circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether the appendices referred to in the will formed an integral part of the testamentary instrument and were proved in accordance with law.

Analysis: The testamentary document expressly made the distribution of assets dependent on the appendices, which contained detailed directions for division of jewellery and shares. The appendices were not signed by the attesting witnesses and were not shown to have been in existence at the time of execution. A document can be incorporated by reference only if it is clearly identified and existing when the will is executed. Since the will could not be worked out without the appendices, the instrument was not complete on its own. Sections 64 and 87 did not assist the propounders, and Section 103 had no application.

Conclusion: The appendices were not proved as part of the will, and the testamentary disposition failed for incompleteness.

Issue (ii): Whether the will was established as a genuine and duly executed document in the face of suspicious circumstances.

Analysis: The will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including the active role of a beneficiary, custody of the document, non-examination of a crucial witness, and the unequal and highly detailed division of properties. In a probate matter, mere formal proof is insufficient where suspicious circumstances exist. The propounder must dispel those circumstances and satisfy the conscience of the court, and the burden under Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act remained undischarged.

Conclusion: The will was not proved to be validly executed and genuine.

Final Conclusion: Probate and letters of administration were rightly refused because the testamentary instrument was incomplete and the surrounding suspicious circumstances were not removed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a will makes its operative dispositions dependent on unproved appendices, and the surrounding circumstances cast serious suspicion on its execution, probate cannot be granted unless the propounder proves the entire testamentary scheme and dispels the suspicion to the satisfaction of the court.

---