cross examination by the plaintiff had categorically stated that on the date of execution of the Will i.e., on 17.03.1999, he was in good health and mental balance and he had also categorically admitted that the Testator had good eye sight and was not affected with paralysis. Similarly DW-3 had also stated that the Testator was in good health and mind set at the time of execution of the Will. The suspicion that had been arisen in the mind of the Trial Court is that in what manner the Will was prepared? According to DW-2, he was not aware as to how the Will was prepared and on whose instruction was prepared and further it was already ready, when he visited the Registrar's office along with Testator. But on the contrary the other Attestator DW-3 had categorically stated that the Will was prepared in the presence of the Testator, DW-2 and himself. He had also categorically stated that when the Testator had given the details for preparation of the Will & DW-2 was also present. This contradiction remained as such, as the first defendant had not chosen to re-examine either DW-2 or DW-3. This contradiction of the preparation of the Will, in the light of the admitted execution of Ex.B.13 Will, without any reasons which had been attributed for change of mind of the Testator creates a suspicion in the manner in which the second Will had been executed.
