years old at the time of his death and 93 years in the year 2001. He submitted that the said Chotemiyasab Patwegar was in the care, control and custody of the defendants, while the plaintiff Nos.2 to 8 were residing away from Lakshemshwar and taking advantage of the situation, the defendants have managed to obtain a deed of gift and the Will in respect of suit properties. He submitted that the plaintiff No.1 was residing in a house adjacent to the house of the defendants and he was neither consulted nor informed about the execution of the Will and the gift deed. He therefore, submitted that this was a strange circumstance, which showed that the defendants had a supervening role in the execution of the gift deed and the Will. Further, he contended that having regard to his age, it was incumbent upon the defendants to remove suspicious circumstance about the lawful execution of the Will by examining a person, who was aware of the physical and mental condition of Chotemiyasab Patwegar. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of DW.7, the Doctor who was treating Chotemiyasab Patwegar was incomplete in as much as he deliberately did not place on record any material to establish the ailments, if any, suffered by Chotemiyasab Patwegar and/or
