JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - The Plaintiff has filed this appeal against the dismissal of her suit based on an application u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of a probate of a registered will dated 28-9-1946 (Ext. 1/a). 2. The testator is one Madanmohan who admittedly died on 23-12-1946 while he was aged about 71. The beneficiary, now the propounder of the will, is his daughter named Mst. Radha Hota. It is resisted by the other three daughters of late Madanmohan on the ground that it is not a genuine will and that their father was not mentally and physically fit to execute a will of the nature as alleged at that time while he was in sinking health. Be it stated here that another daughter of late Madanmohan has remained indifferent. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge framed four issues of which the material one is issue No. 3 which runs thus: 3. Whether the alleged will is genuine and valid? The Plaintiff examined four witnesses of whom herself is P.W. 3 and the Defendants examined two witnesses of whom D.W. 2 Jogendra Satpathy is the husband of one of the sisters named Dutika and D.W. 1 is his co-villager. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the execution and attestation of the will has not been properly proved; that there are accompanying suspicious circumstances regarding free execution of the will; that the will (Ext. 1/a) had not been produced at any time before during abolition of Bhogra proceedings and settlement proceedings and that there was no justification for executing the will in favour of one of the daughters to the exclusion of the others. 5. The will (Ext. 1/a) was scribed by the deed-writer Sridhar Udgata on 28-9-1946 at Patna State as it then was. The stamp papers worth Rs. 15/- (six sheets in all) have been obtained in the name of Madanmohan the very day on 28-9-1946. The two attesting witnesses are Anandamohan Bohidar and Bihari Lal. The registration and execution of the will was identified on behalf of the Plaintiff by Anandamohan Bohidar of Bolangir and Bihari Lal of Bhaler. It is in evidence that the scribe or the deed and the two attesting witnesses are all dead. The two attesting witnesses are Anandamohan Bohidar and Bihari Lal. The registration and execution of the will was identified on behalf of the Plaintiff by Anandamohan Bohidar of Bolangir and Bihari Lal of Bhaler. It is in evidence that the scribe or the deed and the two attesting witnesses are all dead. The Plaintiff examined a petition-writer (P.W. 2) who has identified the handwriting of the scribe Sridhar Udgata and one of the attesting witnesses, namely, Anandamohan Bohidar who was also a fellow deed-writer in the Ex state of Bolangir. The document Ext. 1/a was tendered in evidence on 21-2-1977. Thus by the time it was tendered, it had become a document of more than 30 years old. As such the presumption of genuineness arising out of any such document should follow. Admittedly, it has come from the custody of the propounder who was the only daughter attending to the diseased testator. The learned Court seems to have lost sight of the provisions of Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1963 which provides that: Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the band-writing of any particular person, is in that person's hand writing, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation: Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which and under the care of the person with whom, they wold naturally be, hut no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This explanation applies also to Section 81. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1936 15 (Privy Council), have laid down that The period of 30 years, u/s 90 of the Act is to be reckoned not from the date upon which the deed is filed in the Court but from the date on which, it having been tendered in evidence, its genuineness or other wise becomes subject of proof. Thus the presumption of genuineness is attached to this document as to execution and attestation although the same is a rebuttable one. Besides, P.W. 2 a fellow-deed-writer has identified the signature (Ext. 1/b) of the scribe of Ext. 1/a and the signature of one of the attesting witness (Ext. 1/c). Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied. Section 69 provides as follows: 69. Proof where no attesting witness found. - If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his hand-writing, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. In the instant case, all the parties to the document excepting the beneficiary being deed, the provisions of Section 69 of the Evidence Act have to be applied and here the signature of the scribe has been identified by a fellow-writer who is acquainted with his signature. 6. Thus the document cannot be said to have been not proved. Once it is held that the registered will has been duly executed, the onus would shift to the opposite party to dislodge the presumption arising out of the due execution of the will. The learned lower Court has referred to certain suspicious circumstances but either they are non-existent or unacceptable. For Instance, he has said that there is no evidence that at any other time the testator had given his thumb mark and in that connection he has stated thus: She has, however, admitted that she has not seen her father giving L.T. 1. For Instance, he has said that there is no evidence that at any other time the testator had given his thumb mark and in that connection he has stated thus: She has, however, admitted that she has not seen her father giving L.T. 1. in any other occasions which took place near about the time of the execution of the will. This is a clear error of record for she has so admitted it. Secondly he has stated in the judgment that it is unbelievable that a boy of 15 or 16 like Bihari Lal would have attested the document. There is no reason why by mathematical calculation he would fix the age of Bihari Lal to be 15 years. He is the man who has identified the testator before the Sub-Registrar. Another suspicious circumstance referred to by him is that the testator should not have bequeathed the properties in favour of one of the daughters to the exclusion of the other four. It is in evidence that his daughter was a widow and was issueless. She was staying after her widow-hood with the testator and looking after him. The other daughters of the testator were married and were away busy after their respective family affairs. In the circumstances, it is nothing unnatural that the testator who was fully dependant on this daughter and who was a widow would have a soft corner for her and executed the will in her favour. As for the ground as to why it was not probated though executed in the year 1945, the learned lower Court has lost sight of the fact that probate of this will executed in the Ex-State of Bolangir need not have been probated - See Amrutlal Majhi and Ors. v. Japi Sahuani and Ors. 1972 (2) C.W.R. 1451. 7. In fine, therefore, I would hold that in view of the fact that it is a registered document 30 years old, and produced from proper custody, the presumption of genuineness attached to it has not been rebutted, more particularly so when none of the contesting Defendants has come to Court to be examined. The approach of the learned lower Court is wrong and hence the judgment is set aside, the appeal is allowed. Probate be granted accordingly. Since no body appears for the Respondents, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed