“19 . In the light of what has been discussed above, learned Civil Judge committed no error in holding that since Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt had no child or other legal heir to look after his wife after his death and except the suit land there was no source of income for her sustenance, depriving her of the property was a suspicious circumstances, which the defendant had not been able to explain. It is reiterated that the very purpose of execution of Will is to disinherit a legal heir, but there has to be some reason or explanation. There is nothing on record to prove that the plaintiff and Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt were not on good terms. If Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt was in a sound disposing mind and he was not manipulated, he would not have disinherited the plaintiff. It is altogether a different matter that as per recital in the Will, the plaintiff had been paid in cash in lieu of the property, whereas according to DW4, Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt had told him that he wanted to bequeath the entire property in favour of the defendant as he feared that the plaintiff will lose it. Even this appears to be a cooked up version. If Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt actually thought so, he would have made some provision for the plaintiff for her sustenance. Leaving her high and dry is indicative of the fact that either Hari Pal alias Hari Dutt was not in sound disposing mind or, he was under undue influence of the defendant or, he was manipulated. From all angles, the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Resultantly, the findings of the learned Civil Judge on issues No. 1 and 2 are affirmed.
