exclude his onl y son from inheritance without c ompelling circumstances, and t hat no such circum s tances had been shown in the present case. There was no evidence on record of a n y estrangement, bad blood, or l itigation between the plaintiff and his father Tara Singh. The only ground sugg e sted was that the plaintiff resided abroad, which b y itself was not a valid reason t o disinherit him. 16. Th e Court further found that t h e disposition under Ex.D1 w as unnatural and i m probable, and that where a dis p osition appears unnatural, it ra i ses strong suspicio n which the propounder of the Will must dispel. The defendants, being the bene f iciaries under the Will, had f a iled to discharge this burden. T he Court also foun d that there was no documentar y evidence to prove that Tara Si n gh ever resided wi t h the defendants, nor was there any medical evidence to show t hat they had treate d him during illness. On the cont r ary, defendant No. 1 Sukhpal K aur herself admitte d that Tara Singh used to cultiva t e his land during his lifetime. 17. Th e Court also observed that the second attesting witness, Hari n der Pattar, had not b een examined, and that even D W2 Amarjit Singh did not de p ose that Harinder P a ttar had attested the Will in his presence or in the presence of T ara Singh. His test i mony was totally silent on thi s aspect. Further, the scribe of the Will was also n o t examined. Thus, the require m ent of attestation by two witne s ses in terms of Sect i on 63 of the Succession Act w a s not duly proved. 18. In t hese circumstances, the Lower Appellate Court held that the W ill Ex.D1 dated 22.06.1999 was surrounded by su s picious circumstances and had not been proved to have been validly executed b y Tara Singh. The Court there f ore concurred with t he learned trial Court that the d e fendants had failed to establish the validity of the W ill.
