JUDGMENT R.K. Shukla, J. - This Special Appeal has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the judgment dated 24.12.1980 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Testamentary case No. 7 of 1973 (Suit No. 1 of 1980) whereby probate has been granted to the Respondent Ladley Mohan Mathur of a will executed by his father Mata Prasad Mathur on 5.2.1957. 2. The facts giving rise to this Special Appeal, is pleaded by the Respondent in brief, are that Mata Prasad Mathur father of the Appellant and the Respondent, resident of ' Hardi Bhawan' 211, Attarsuiya, Allahabad, who was a retired Head Assistant of the office of the Administrator General at Allahabad and owned properties worth more than Rs. 15,000/- in the city of Allahabad, executed a will, Ex. P-l on 5.6.1957 at Kanpur, where he was living at that time with his son Ladley Mohan Mathur, who was employed in the Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration. The will was duly executed and signed by the testator before two attestion witnesses, namely, Guru Nandan Prasad PW 1 and Shyam Sunder, in a sound disposing mind and of his own free will and accord whereby he bequeathed his three houses No. 210, 211 (including shops) and 213 along with all other properties to his only son Ladley Mohan Mathur and the wife of Ladley Mohan Mathur, namely Phool Kumari except the Government securities of the face value of Rs. 1000/- only which were given to his daughter Smt. Shakuntala, Appellant. It is further stated that the testator had got the will prepared in quadruplicate and all the four documents were signed by the testator and attested by the attesting witnesses whose affidavits have been filed along with the petition. The testator Mata Prasad Mathur gave one copy of the will duty executed and attested by the witnesses to his son Ladley Mohan Mathur and another to his son-in-law, Sri R.N. Mathur alias Gopalji (husband of Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Appellant). The remaining copies and the holograph draft will were kept by the testator in an envelope, Ex. P-4, which was discovered later on by Ladley Mohan Mathur after the death of the testator on 10.6.1966. 3. An application for mutation was moved by Ladley Mohan Mathur on 18.4.1967, wherein a true copy of the will was filed. The remaining copies and the holograph draft will were kept by the testator in an envelope, Ex. P-4, which was discovered later on by Ladley Mohan Mathur after the death of the testator on 10.6.1966. 3. An application for mutation was moved by Ladley Mohan Mathur on 18.4.1967, wherein a true copy of the will was filed. One of four copies of the will had been filed by Ladley Mohan Mathur in suit No. 720 of 1968 in the court of the Additional Munsif, Allahabad and another copy had been filed by him alongwith the petition for probate in this Court. It indicates that Ladley Mohan Mathur, Respondent and his wife Smt. Phool Kumari Mathur were appointed as executors of this will. Notice of the petition for probate filed by Ladley Mohon Mathur were issued to Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Phool Kumari Mathur besides the Board of Revenue and the Assistant Controller of the Estate Duty. Smt. Phool Kumari wife of Ladley Mohan Mathur filed an affidavit in which she stated that she had no objection to the grant of probate in favour of her husband. However, caveat alongwith a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Appellant Smt. Shakuntala Devi, daughter of Mata Prasad Mathur, wherein it was alleged that the will was an unregistered document and it was a fabricated and not a genuine one. Rejoinder affidavit/ replication was filed by Ladley Mohan Mathur. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Single Judge framed the following five issues: 1. Whether the will (Annexure 1 to the petition) dated 5.6.1957 has been duly executed? 2. Whether the testator executed the will dated 5.6.1957 out of his own free will and whether he was in a sound disposing mind? 3. Whether the will dated 5.6.1957 is a forged and fabricated document-If so its effect ? 4. Whether the Defendant is a person interested and entitled to file the caveat and the objection ? 5. Relief ? 5. After discussing the entire evidence and arguments in detail the learned Single Judge has decided all the issues except issue No. 4 against Smt. Shakuntala Devi Appellant, hence this appeal. 6. Dr. Gyan Prakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that even though the will is stated to have been executed on 5.6.1957 and the testator died on 10.6.1966; the will was not got registered. 6. Dr. Gyan Prakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that even though the will is stated to have been executed on 5.6.1957 and the testator died on 10.6.1966; the will was not got registered. A mutation application was moved by the Respondent Ladley Mohan Mathur on 18.4.1967; but the will was not produced and only a copy thereof was produced and even that is not traceable as the record is stated to have been weeded out. An application for release was made by the Respondent under Rule 6 framed under U.P. Act 3 of 1947, on 18.11.1967 regarding a house of the testator. But the will was not produced. This application was rejected on 20.3.68, on the ground that it had not been moved by the joint owners Ladley Mohan and Smt. Shakuntala Devi. He also urged that four sets of will were set up one of which was stated to be original, and the others as copies or duplicates. It is not clear which one is original. Therefore, no probate can be granted. He further contended that the will was unnatural, because the testator had deprived the Appellant of her right under the Hindu Succession Act to inherit the property of her father along with her brother. Profounder presence at the time of execution of the will and calling the witnesses by him make the will suspicious. 7. After going through the evidence on record both oral and documentary and the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who has dealt with all these points in detail, we find no merit in any of the points urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 8. It is true that even though the will in dispute was executed on 5.6.1957 by Sri Mata Prasad and he died on 10.6.1966 that is about nine years thereafter the will was nut got registered. This, however, is in our opinion of no significance. Due execution of the will including its attestation by so witnesses, as required by Sub-sections (a)(b) and (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, has been fully proved by one of the attesting witnesses Guru Nandan Prasad, PW 1 who saw Mata Prasad the testator and Shyam Sunder the other attesting witness, putting their signatures on the will Ex. P-l. He himself signed the same in the presence of Mata Prasad and Shyam Sunder. P-l. He himself signed the same in the presence of Mata Prasad and Shyam Sunder. All the corrections and modifications on both pages of the will have been initialed by each one of the aforesaid three persons. Gum Nandan Prasad has emphatically denied the suggestion that Mata Prasad was in a very poor state of health in those days. Nothing adverse has been elicited in his cross-examination which may create any doubt about the veracity of his evidence. His evidence finds full corroboration from his affidavit dated 7th January 1979 as well as affidavit of Shyam Sunder dated 17th January 1979 which are on the record as well as from the evidence of Ladley Mohan Mathur, PW 2 and other evidence on the record. In these circumstances, to draw any inference against the genuineness of the will Ex. P-l on the ground of its non-registration is wholly unwarranted as held in Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Sm. Kamta Devi and Others, AIR 1954 SC 280 . 9. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rani Purnima Devi and Another Vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev and Another, AIR 1962 SC 567 the learned Single Judge has rightly held that it is not necessary that a will should be registered in every case. Registration of the will gives support to it authenticity but that is not conclusive. It was the privilege of the testator to get the will registered. If he did not get it registered during the duration of aforesaid 9 years, the Plaintiff-Respondent cannot be blamed for the same. It was open to the testator to change his will any time during the period of 9 years but there is no evidence that he did so. There is no evidence of any suspicious circumstances indicating that the testator ever intended to revoke his will. Reference was made in this connection to a letter dated 11.4.1958 Ex. P-6 wherein it is stated that the testator had equal love for both of his children. There is no evidence of any suspicious circumstances indicating that the testator ever intended to revoke his will. Reference was made in this connection to a letter dated 11.4.1958 Ex. P-6 wherein it is stated that the testator had equal love for both of his children. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken this statement contained in the later part of a sentence out of its context and totally ignored the earlier portion of the sentence "So long as my daughter and Dear Gopalji are in Allahabad they should be accommodated free of rent, if they went to live in peace with you as it would be a disgrace to my name, if my daughter lives in a rented house but of course if she wants to live in a separate house there is nothing to prevent her, but you should not eject her or let her feel my absence as far as possible. " He has further written in that letter:" I do not want my houses to go to an outsider or even out of his male lineal descendants who according to Hindu Shastras and my own view also should always perform Shradh, tarpon and Gaya Pindas for the peace and salvation of the souls of the deceased fore-fathers. " In the will and in this letter, he has only made provision for Rs. 1000/- for the Appellant. In the end of this letter he has written that "I am giving a copy of this letter with a copy of my will to Gopalji entrusting him also to see that my wishes are respected at the proper time."In the affidavit of Sri R.N. Mathur, husband of the Appellant, dated 14th February 1980 on the record, there is no specific denial that R.N. Mathur alias Gopalji did not receive this letter and the copy of the will. Of course, he has stated that the will is fabricated but no evidence has been produced to support this contention. From the perusal of the will Ex. P-l, it appears that every correction and modification in the will has been signed by the testator and the two attesting witnesses on each page. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that this will is a fabricated document. In these circumstances, non-registration of the will creates no suspicion as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 10. P-l, it appears that every correction and modification in the will has been signed by the testator and the two attesting witnesses on each page. Therefore, we are not inclined to hold that this will is a fabricated document. In these circumstances, non-registration of the will creates no suspicion as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 10. Now we proceed to examine the aforesaid alleged suspicious circumstance of not producing the will in mutation proceeding, as well as in the application for release made Under Rule 6 and the alleged inordinate delay in filing the petition for grant of probate. It is true that the death of the testator look place on 10.6.1966 and the petition for grant of probate was filed after about 13 years of the death of Sri Mata Prasad. Sri Ladley Mohan, PW 2 has however, explained this delay in his statement by stating that he had been in service and had been transferred from place to place and he could not, therefore, apply for probate. There" is no limitation provided for seeking the probate of a duly executed will. To remove the suspicion suggested by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it will suffice to say that Sri Ladley Mohan moved an application for mutation on 18.4.1967 just after 10 months of the death of Mata Prasad and as is clear from the order on record passed by the Deputy Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika Allahabad a true copy of the will was filed which was compared with the original will and that both the attesting witnesses namely Guru Nandan Prasad and Shyam Sunder were examined by Ladley Mohan Mathur in support of his claim on the basis of the will. The mutation authorities mutated the names of the Appellant and the Respondent both, against which appeal was filed by the Respondent before the District Judge. If true copy of the will filed before the mutation authorities is not traceable because the record has been weeded out the Respondent cannot be blamed for the same. The mutation authorities mutated the names of the Appellant and the Respondent both, against which appeal was filed by the Respondent before the District Judge. If true copy of the will filed before the mutation authorities is not traceable because the record has been weeded out the Respondent cannot be blamed for the same. As regards the non-filing of the will in the release application filed on 18.11.1967 it may be pointed out that the copy of this application on record indicates that in paragraph 1 thereof it was specifically stated by Ladley Mohan Mathur that he was the owner of the house in question " under a will dated 5.6.1957 duly executed by Sri Mata Prasad Mathur. " in paragraph 6 of the petition for grant of probate it has been specifically stated that one of the four copies of the will was filed by Ladley Mohan Mathur in suit No. 720 of 1968 (a suit filed in about two years time after the death of Mata Prasad). This statement of fact has not been controverter in the counter affidavit filed by R.N. Mathur- It is therefore apparent that the will was filed in suit No. 720 of 1968 in the Court of Additional Munsif, Allahabad, which is not disputed. From these facts, it is quite clear that the Defendants were aware of the will in dispute and all the claims of the Respondent on the basis of the will. It is, therefore, not a case where the will has seen the light of the day for the first time when the probate proceedings started on 5.10.1979 u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act. Thus we find no merit in this argument. 11. Now we proceed to examine the main argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that four sets of will were set up and the witnesses also speak of original will which is not produced, thus it is not clear which one is original, therefore, probate cannot be granted to the Respondent against the will Ex. P-l. In support of his contention, he relied on Makhan Lal Sen Gupta Vs. The State, AIR 1958 Cal 517 and Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI)., AIR 1967 SC 526 . 12. This point has been discussed in detail by the learned Single Judge in his judgment while deciding the issues Nos. P-l. In support of his contention, he relied on Makhan Lal Sen Gupta Vs. The State, AIR 1958 Cal 517 and Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI)., AIR 1967 SC 526 . 12. This point has been discussed in detail by the learned Single Judge in his judgment while deciding the issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. We find no fault in the judgment of the learned Single Judge on this point. Dr. Gyan Prakash, learned Counsel for the Appellant urged vehemently that the will Ex. P-l in dispute was not testamentary document and was at best a duplicate copy of the original will which has not been produced. Therefore, probate cannot be granted on the basis of this duplicate will. It was also contended that there is no evidence that the original will has been lost and duplicate will Ex. P-l can be treated to be the secondary evidence under explanation 2 of Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the other hand, Mr. J.M. Pant, learned Counsel for the Respondent urged that the will Ex. P-l was an original document notwithstanding the fact that four sets of will had been executed simultaneously on the same date. Since each copy had been duly signed by Mata Prasad and both the attesting witnesses each one of them was original will. A mere description in the petition or in the evidence that the will was duplicate one would not render it invalid because Ex. P-l had' been duly executed by the testator and duly attested by 2 witnesses which fulfilled all the requirements of a testamentary document and it was admissible in evidence. He relied on the cases cited before the learned Single Judge, namely, Ram Chandra v. Emperor AIR 1930 Lah 371 and Kruttivasa Padhy Vs. Malati Padhani and Others, AIR 1959 Ori 113 . 13. After hearing the parties and careful scrutiny of the evidence and will Ex. P-l, which is sealed in an envelope and kept separately under the custody of the Registrar, with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are fully satisfied that Ex. P-l, which bears signatures of the testator and two attesting witnesses and initials on each correction and modification, is an original document and admissible in evidence. P-l, which is sealed in an envelope and kept separately under the custody of the Registrar, with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, we are fully satisfied that Ex. P-l, which bears signatures of the testator and two attesting witnesses and initials on each correction and modification, is an original document and admissible in evidence. It has come in the evidence of Guru Nandan Prasad PW 1 one of the attesting witnesses of the will in dispute (Ex. P-l) as mentioned earlier that four sets of identical testamentary documents were executed as his final will on 5.6.1957 by Mata Prasad (testator) at the residence of his son Ladley Mohan at Kanpur where the testator was residing at that time. It has also come in evidence that both the attesting witnesses Sri Guru Nandan Prasad PW 1 and Shyams under who have filed their affidavits, had signed along with testator on each set of the will. Guru Nandan Prasad PW 1 has specifically stated that Ex. P-l was signed by the testator as well as by the two attesting witnesses, namely he himself and Shyam Sunder. It is true that PW 2 Ladley Mohan described it as a copy and Guru Nandan PW 1 has described it as duplicate copy but that would not, in our opinion, make it a copy in the eyes of law. It appears that the word 'copy' or the word 'duplicate' has been used in the ordinary parlance only to emphasise that it was exactly the same as the other 3 sets of paper executed on the same date i.e. on 5.6.1957. The contents were similar and would thus be described as copies but when the documents were signed by the testator as required by Section 63(a) and attested by the witnesses as required by Section 63 (b) and (c) of the Indian Succession Act, each set became original document. This view finds support from the aforesaid decisions in Ram Chandra and Kutti Vasan Padhy's cases (Supra) on which the learned Single Judge has placed reliance. 14. The cases of Makhan Lal and Hindustan Construction Co. (Supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are distinguishable on facts. In Makhan Lal's case (Supra), a carbon copy of the search list with certain ink writings on it was not found admissible u/s 62 of the Evidence Act. 14. The cases of Makhan Lal and Hindustan Construction Co. (Supra) relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are distinguishable on facts. In Makhan Lal's case (Supra), a carbon copy of the search list with certain ink writings on it was not found admissible u/s 62 of the Evidence Act. It was held that the whole of the document could not have been made by one uniform process and it could not satisfy the requirements of Section 62 of the Evidence Act. In the Hindustan Construction Co. case (Supra), the dispute was whether the document filed was a signed copy of the award. The main contention on behalf of the Appellant was that the document was signed copy of the award within the meaning of those words u/s 14(2) of the Arbitration Act and thus should have been acted upon by the Court. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that what had been filed was to certified copy of the award and not signed copy thereof, and therefore, it could not be acted upon. The Punjab High Court accepted the contention of the Respondent and all that it had said in this behalf was that it was not a signed copy of the award and it was certified as correct copy of the award dated 27th May 1961. The Supreme Court ruled that unfortunately the Punjab High Court had not considered what exactly the words 'signed copy of the award' mean and held in paragraph 7 of the said report as under: We accept these observations and are of the opinion that so long as there is the signature of the arbitrator or umpire on the copy of the award filed in Court and it shows that the person signing authenticated the accuracy or correctness of the copy the document would be a signed copy of the award. It would in such circumstances be immaterial whether the arbitrator or umpire put down the words " certified to be true copy " before signing the copy of the award Then turning to the document we find that it begins with the words ' now I hereby reproduce a true copy of the said award which is as follows ' and this is signed by Sri Dildar Hussain, the Umpire. Then follows the copy of the award. Then follows the copy of the award. At the end we find the words 'certifiedas correct copy of the award, dated 27th May, 1961 underneath appears the signature of Sri Dildar Hussain, the Umpire. Clearly, therefore, the document filed is true or accurate and full reproduction of the original award and it bears the signature of the Umpire Sri Dildar Hussain and thus is a signed copy of the award. 15. It was not a case of several identical documents being simultaneously executed. In Ram Chandra's case (Supra), the Calcutta High Court was dealing with copies. In the instant case, document Ex. P-l cannot be said to be a copy but the same is original because it contains the signatures of the testator and attesting witnesses. Thus, both the cases relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are distinguishable on facts. At this place we may point out that when a document is typed and a carbon copy is also taken out simultaneously the first impression is in common parlance known as the original and the carbon copy as the duplicate or copy. The will Ex. P-l is a typed carbon copy. There must, therefore, have been its first impression. In our opinion it is apparent that it is in this sense that the word 'original " and "duplicate or copy " have ber-n used with reference to the quadruplicate wills. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the testamentary document Ex. P-l is a copy, on the other hand it is an original document. Therefore, we reject the argument that it was not admissible in evidence u/s 62 Evidence Act. 16. There is another weighty reason to reject the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant on the question of admissibility of the document Ex. P-l. The reason is that the document was admitted in evidence without any objection. It is very well settled that once the document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open to the Appellant now to object as to its admissibility. This proposition of law finds ample support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. It is very well settled that once the document has been admitted in evidence, it is not open to the Appellant now to object as to its admissibility. This proposition of law finds ample support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 SC 608 as well as from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Bharat Ram v. Khetu Ram AIR 1929 PC 110 . 17. So far as the execution of the will is concerned, we have already held that it fulfilled the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and it is not necessary to repeat it. It will suffice to say that there is uncontroversial cogent evidence that the testator was in perfectly fit state of mind and body on the date of execution of the will. It has also proved that Mata Prasad had been seen reading and writing without difficulty. It is clear from the statement of the PW 1 Guru Nandan Prasad and a perusal of the will Ex. P-l that in the 12th line from the bottom the word 'or' has been corrected as 'on' and initialed by the testator and the two attesting witnesses on page 1. On page 2, there are certain corrections and modifications which are not only initialed by the testator but by the two attesting witnesses as well. Under these circumstances, we are fully satisfied that the finding of the learned Single Judge that this testamentary document Ex. P-l itself is an original document is perfectly correct and needs no interference. 18. Then relying on the observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 20 of the report in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 and paragraph 10 to 16 of the report in the case of Ram Chandra v. Champa Bai, AlK. 1965 SC 354 the will in dispute was attacked on the ground that Ladley Mohan called the attesting witnesses and he was present in the house when the will was executed whereby the Appellant was deprived of her natural right to inherit the property of her father. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases and on careful scrutiny of the evidence, we are satisfied that there is no force in this argument as well. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid cases and on careful scrutiny of the evidence, we are satisfied that there is no force in this argument as well. It has come in the evidence that the testator of the will Sri Mata Prasad had one son and one daughter namely, Ladley Mohan and Smt. Shakuntala Devi which is not disputed. It has also come in evidence that the wife of Mata Prasad had died in the year 1940 and he was living in his house alone and was looked after by the Appellant who was living with him alongwith her husband in one of the connected three houses of Mata Prasad. It is also not disputed that Ladley Mohan was posted at Kanpur and he was living with his family there. Therefore, it cannot be said that Ladley Mohan had any undue influence over the testator in executing the will. The facts and circumstances of this case suggest that the position was otherwise because the Appellant had got greater opportunity to influence the testator than Ladley Mohan. He could not stop his father from coming to his house at Kanpur. Guru Nandan Prasad PW 1 has clearly stated that when the will was executed Ladley Mohan was not present in the room. There was no body except the testator and the two attesting witnesses when the will was executed. Mata Prasad was an old man. He himself could not go to call the witnesses. Under these circumstances, on the direction of his father, calling the attesting witnesses by Ladley Mohan and his presence in the house will not adversely affect the will. The testator has given only Rs. 1000/- in the shape of bonds to the Appellant and all the remaining properties to his son. The reasons for depriving his daughter from the property are very well enshrined in the letter Ex. P-6 dated 11.4.1958 wherein he has clearly written " I do not want my houses to go to an outsider or even out of his male lineal descendants who according to Hindu Shastras and my own view also should always perform Shradh, tarpan and Gaya Pindas for the peace and salvation of the souls of the deceased fore-fathers. P-6 dated 11.4.1958 wherein he has clearly written " I do not want my houses to go to an outsider or even out of his male lineal descendants who according to Hindu Shastras and my own view also should always perform Shradh, tarpan and Gaya Pindas for the peace and salvation of the souls of the deceased fore-fathers. " If inspite of the services rendered by the appellant to her father, he has not given her any share in his other properties that may be unfortunate for the Appellant but the Courts cannot help it. 19. After careful scrutiny of the evidence on the record, we are fully satisfied that there are no suspicious circumstance from which it can be inferred that the will Ex. P-1 was executed by the testator not out of his free will and he was not in sound disposing mind. No undue influence was ever exercised by his son Ladley Mohan. In our patriarchal society, it is not unnatural for a father to give his whole .property to his son. It may or may not be justified but the fact remains that generally people in this part of the country do not like to make their daughters co-sharers of their sons. Although the Appellant has set up a case that the will is a fabricated one, she has produced no evidence in support of the same. On the other hand, Ladley Mohan has produced sufficient evidence to prove his case and remove all doubts. In our opinion, Ladley Mohan Mathur himself had not taken any part in the execution of the will which conferred substantial benefit on him. Therefore, Courts cannot refuse granting probate as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra v. Champa Bai (Supra) as under: If the propos under succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might out off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the Appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested. 20. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the Appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested. 20. The requirement as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar (Supra), has been fully fulfilled by the Plaintiff-Respondent in this case producing overwhelming documentary and oral evidence to remove all the suspicious circumstances urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The will Ex. P-1 finds full corroboration from its holograph draft which is kept in an envelope Ex. P-4. On the material on record we are fully satisfied that the testamentary document Ex. P-1 produced before this Court is the last will of the testator and was validly executed by the testator and duly attested by two witnesses. Therefore, this point also goes against the Appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion we find no merit in this appeal. 21. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The grant of probate to the Plaintiff-Respondent of the will Ex. P-1 executed by Mata Prasad Mathur is upheld. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.