Propounder must explain suspicious circumstances to satisfy judicial conscience, regardless of challenger's failure to prove fraud.

The appellant’s predecessor, Bhambo Devi (widow of Chhajju Ram), filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of properties left by her husband, who died intestate and issueless on February 5, 1992.

The respondents (nephews of the deceased) contested the suit by propounding a registered Will dated November 6, 1974, which disinherited the wife on the grounds that she possessed sufficient jewelry and cash.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, finding the Will shrouded in suspicious circumstances, specifically citing uninitialed cuttings on the Registrar's endorsement where the name "Laxmi Kant Bassi" was replaced with "Chhajju Ram".

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh reversed these findings in a second appeal, holding that once attestation was proved by one witness, suspicions stood explained.

1. Whether the pleadings of the plaintiff were deficient or self-contradictory regarding the challenge to the Will.

2. Whether non-examination of the plaintiff was sufficient to dismiss the suit.

3. Whether there were suspicious circumstances shrouding the execution of the Will and whether they were satisfactorily explained.

4. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact.

The Court applied Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the formal requirements for proving a Will.

It relied on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma to establish that the propounder must dispel suspicious circumstances to satisfy the court’s "judicial conscience".

Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, the High Court’s jurisdiction in a second appeal is limited to "substantial questions of law" and does not extend to re-appreciating facts unless the lower court findings are perverse.

The court also invoked the "doctrine of non-traverse" under Order VIII Rule 5 of the CPC, where facts not denied are deemed admitted.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in treating the proof of a Will as a mere mathematical exercise of witnessing signatures.

While one attesting witness (DW-2) testified, the Court found the "judicial conscience" unsatisfied due to several unexplained factors: the testator was an illiterate agriculturist, yet the Will contained factual inaccuracies regarding his relationship with the legatees and his lodging arrangements.

Crucially, the back of the Will contained uninitialed cuttings by the Sub-Registrar, replacing another name with the testator's, which invalidated the presumption of regularity in registration.

The Court held that disinheriting a caring wife in favor of distant relatives without a truthful explanation constitutes a "suspicious circumstance" that the propounder failed to dispel.

Furthermore, the First Appellate Court's findings on these suspicions were findings of fact; hence, the High Court overstepped its Section 100 jurisdiction by substituting its own view.

The Court answered that the plaintiff's non-examination was immaterial as her status as the sole heir was an admitted fact, and the suspicious circumstances (unnatural disposition and uninitialed cuttings) remained unexplained.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the Trial Court’s decree and affirming the finding of the plaintiff’s possession.