Proof of Will depends on attestation and genuine suspicious circumstances; unsupported doubts cannot defeat valid probate.

Proof of a Will requires compliance with the attestation and proof requirements under the Succession Act and Evidence Act, including examination of an attesting witness. Once due execution and prima facie testamentary competence are shown, the burden shifts only where the contestant proves real, germane and well-founded suspicious circumstances. Mere presence of beneficiaries, failure to examine the drafting advocate, or unsupported allegations do not by themselves invalidate probate. On the facts, the testatrix was literate, one attesting witness was examined, the Will was signed in that witness's presence, and the alleged doubts were unsubstantiated; the Will was therefore validly proved and rejection of it was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Will dated 10.11.1992 was proved in accordance with law and whether the circumstances relied upon were sufficient to treat its execution as suspicious and invalidate probate.

Analysis: Proof of a Will requires compliance with the statutory requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including examination of an attesting witness. Once the propounder establishes due execution and prima facie competence of the testator, the burden shifts only if the contestant pleads and proves real, germane and well-founded suspicious circumstances. Mere presence of beneficiaries, non-examination of the drafting advocate, or general allegations without foundation do not by themselves constitute suspicious circumstances. On the evidence, the testatrix was educated, able to read and write English, one attesting witness was examined, the Will was signed in the witness's presence, and the alleged doubts were unsupported.

Conclusion: The Will was validly proved and the suspicious circumstances relied upon were not established; the finding rejecting the Will was unsustainable.

---