JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows : Chanda, J.: This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit No. 13 of 196l by the learned Subordinate Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore. The respondent, Nandalal Dey, filed an application for Probate of the Will alleged to have been executed on Aswin 12/1366 B. S. corresponding to September 29, 1959, by his uncle, Late Basanta Kumar Dey who died on November 6, 1959, at the age of 60 without any issue. The appellant lndurani, widow of Basanta, opposed the application alleging that the Will was a piece of forgery, and in developing that contention she alleged before the learned Subordinate Judge that about 4/5 months prior to the date of the alleged Will Basanta was confined to bed due to illness and he was not in his senses for about two months prior to his death on November 6, 1959, and it was not possible for him to execute the Will. The appellant also contended before the learned Subordinate Judge that the application was not maintainable for non-compliance with the provisions of section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence placed before him has found that Basanta had testamentary capacity to execute the Will and he executed it with full knowledge of its contents and out of his free will. In other words, he has negatived the appellant's contention that the Will was a forged one. In regard to the verification of the application he has found that there has been sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. 3. On the above finding the learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit with costs and a Probate of the Will was ordered to be issued in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved by that decision the defendant, Smt. Indurani Dey has come with the instant appeal. 4. We propose to first dispose of the legal objection about the maintainability of the application that has been raised by the appellant with reference to section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. 5. Being aggrieved by that decision the defendant, Smt. Indurani Dey has come with the instant appeal. 4. We propose to first dispose of the legal objection about the maintainability of the application that has been raised by the appellant with reference to section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. 5. Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act lays down that where the application is for probate, the petition shall also be verified by at least one of the witnesses to the Will (when available) to the effect that he was present and saw the testator affix his signature (or mark) thereto or that the testator acknowledged the writing to be his last Will and testament in his presence. The instant application has been verified by one Narayan Chandra Mandal claiming to be one of the witnesses to the last Will and testament of that testator to the effect that he was present and saw the testator affix his signature to the Will. On a reference to the Will, we find that Narayan acted as 'bakalamdar' of Basanta read over and explained the contents of the Will to the testator and put his signature in support of the endorsement regarding certain correction in the body of the document. In his evidence Narayan has said that he witnessed the execution and attestation of the Will. Not only that, he identified the executant before the Sub-Registrar. That is, also the evidence of P.W.1, the scribe, and P.W.3, whose name appears as one of the attesting witnesses in the document. Though Narayan did not sign the document as an attesting witness, his position is like that of an attesting witness inasmuch as he claims to have seen the testator affixing his thumb impression and the witnesses attesting the document. We think, therefore, that there has been sufficient compliance of section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner for probate may not have any control over the attesting witnesses and an attesting witness cannot be compelled to verify it. In such cases, a petitioner for Probate Will be helpless. We read the provisions of section 281 as merely directory and not mandatory. 6. It has been urged by the appellant that the verification is defective on another ground, namely, that it speaks of affixation of signature in the Will by the testator whereas the Will bears thumb impression. In such cases, a petitioner for Probate Will be helpless. We read the provisions of section 281 as merely directory and not mandatory. 6. It has been urged by the appellant that the verification is defective on another ground, namely, that it speaks of affixation of signature in the Will by the testator whereas the Will bears thumb impression. Under the General Clauses Act signature includes thumb impression. It appears that the word 'signature' in the verification has been used in its general sense. We are unable to accede to the contention raised by the appellant with reference to section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. 7. We are now left with only other point-whether the Will, Ex. 1, has been executed by Basanta, and if so, was it duly attested? On this point, we have the direct evidences of P.W.1, the scribe, P.W.2, Narayan a bout whose evidence we had occasion to refer earlier and P.W.3 whose name appears in the Will as one of the attesting witnesses their testimonies prove that on September 28, 1950, Basanta sent for the scribe P.W.1, who is a resident of the locality, and a draft of the Will was prepared at Basanta's residence. In the next morning at about 10 a.m. P.W.1 again went to the house of Basanta and P.W.1, P.W.2, Narayan and others accompanied Basanta to the Registration Office where the Will was registered. P.W.1, a professional scribe, being a resident of the locality, is a likely hand to be called in to write out the document. It was suggested to P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the Will was got up at the instance and connivance of P.W.1 and Nandalal. It does not appear from the evidence on record that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are in any way under obligation to Nandalal and there is apparently no reason why they would enter into an unholy conspiracy with Nandalal to forge the Will. P.W.3 was residing as a tenant in a room at Basanta's house and it is quite natural that Basanta would call him to witness the execution of the Will. D.W.1 has said that P.W.2 and P.W.3 entered into collusion in manufacturing the Will. It is merely a conjecture for which no foundation has been laid in evidence. In cross-examination he says that he heard about the Will from his sister. D.W.1 has said that P.W.2 and P.W.3 entered into collusion in manufacturing the Will. It is merely a conjecture for which no foundation has been laid in evidence. In cross-examination he says that he heard about the Will from his sister. If he heard about the Will from his sister, he could have no personal knowledge about the collusion or conspiracy as the witness told the Court to believe in examination-in-chief. D.W.2, Indurani, the appellant, in her evidence has said that she does not believe that the Will was executed by her husband and the Will was manufactured at the instance of other persons. She has not, however, disclosed the names of any such person in her evidence. Though suggested to P.W.3 that the witness and Nandalal had a grudge against Indurani and a criminal case was started and P.W.3 was cautioned, neither Indurani nor his brother has uttered a single word in this respect. The learned Subordinate Judge, in the circumstances, was justified in relying on the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. 8. It has been alleged in paragraph 1 of the written statement that about 4/5 months before the execution of the alleged Will the testator remained confined to bed due to illness and for two months prior to his death Basanta was lying senseless and, as such, it was not possible for him to execute the Will. The Will bears the date Aswin 12, 1366 B. S. It will appear from Exs. A and B marked on the side of the appellant that Basanta was keeping accounts personally upto Bhadra 1365 B. S. Indurani's own evidence in cross-examination is that though her husband lost all senses for two months prior to his death which took place on November 6, 1969, he could understand and do certain things like writing out bills etc. This completely demolishes the appellant's case that her husband was not in a position to execute any Will on Aswin 12, 1366 B. S. On the other hand, her evidence in cross-examination reveals that her husband was possessed of his normal sense during two months prior to his death. That Basanta was in possession of full sense will also appear from the fact that he went to the Registration Office, presented the Will for registration and admitted its execution before the Sub-Registrar (vide the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the back of the document). That Basanta was in possession of full sense will also appear from the fact that he went to the Registration Office, presented the Will for registration and admitted its execution before the Sub-Registrar (vide the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar on the back of the document). It is true that Basanta, who was an employee of Gun and Shell Factory, was quite literate. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that when Basanta was literate there could be no possible reason why he would execute the Will by putting thumb impression. There is evidence that 4/5 months before the execution of the will Basanta was suffering from gastric ulcer and anaemia and his hands were swollen and shaky. That Basanta was suffering from gastric ulcer and anaemia will also appear from the evidence of D.W.1. Neither Indurani nor his brother D.W.1, has given any denial to the evidence on the side of the plaintiff that Basanta's hand was swollen and shaky at the relevant time. In the absence of such denial we are prepared to accept the plaintiff's explanation that the' Will was thumb impressed as Basanta's hand was swollen and shaky on account of his illness. 9. There is internal evidence in the document itself that Basanta's mind was sound and perfectly logical. The testator suffering from gastric ulcer and anaemia at the age of 60 did not exclude from his bounty his wife who, as the evidences on record suggest, was not looking after him. The respondent is the only person who had helped him in his old age and illness and naturally for him the testator had tin tile closing date of his life always felt a warm affection. 10. The learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has drawn has attention to the date September 280, 1959, below the signatures of the Sub-Registrar. The date September 28, 1959, it appears, is merely a slip for September 29, 1959 the dates mentioned in the body of the document. The endsorsement of the Sub-Registrar shows that the document was presented for registration on September 29, 1959. It does not also appear from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant raised any contention before him that this apparent error was indicative of the something more serious. 11. The endsorsement of the Sub-Registrar shows that the document was presented for registration on September 29, 1959. It does not also appear from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that the appellant raised any contention before him that this apparent error was indicative of the something more serious. 11. The appellant has contended that on account of non-examination of the petitioner adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the learned Subordinate Judge. It docs not appear that the petitioner purposely kept himself out of the way to prove due execution and attestation of the Will. The scribe, the identifier, and the attesting witnesses were sufficient and the application was not an essential witness. His non-examination cannot discredit his case that the will was executed by Basanta. 12. In paragraph I of the application it has been stated that Ex.1 is the last Will and testament of Basanta. In the written statement the appellant besides describing the Will as a forged one has not said that it is not the last Will of the testator. 13. On a consideration of the materials on record, we hold in agreement with the learned Subordinate Judge that the Will is a genuine one. The execution and attestation of the Will have been duly proved. We find no reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. The instant appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, the appear is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to the costs of the appeal. Gupta, J : I agree.