Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. It would be prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law. Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the Will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators.(Jarman onWills Vol.1, 8th Edition, page 50) ways that the general rule is 'that the onus probandi lies in every case upon the party propounding a Will and he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last Will of a free and capable testator'. He adds that, if a Will is rational on the face of it, and appears to be duly executed, it is presumed, in the absence of
