L. M. GHOSH, J. ( 1 ) BIBHUTI Bhusan Sadhu, a resident of the village Makdumnagar, died on 21. 6. 69, corresponding to the Ashar 1376, B. S. The petitioner-propounder is the wife of Bibhuti Bhusan Sadhu. The O. P. No. 1 is the son of late Bibhuti Bhusan and the OPs. Nos. 2 and 3 are the two daughters of the same person. The propounder/petitioner filed a obtaining Probate on the ground that Bibhuti Babu, before his death, executed a Will on 11. 6. 69, corresponding to the 28th Jaistha 1376 B. S. , whereby the petitioner was appointed an executed of the Will. It was contended that the said Will was executed by Bibhuti Bhusan while he had testamentary capacity. On these grounds, the petitioner made application for Probate. Of the opposite parties, only the O. P. /defendant No. 3, a daughter of Bibhuti Babu, contested. Her case was that Bibhuti Babu was ailing for long and that ailment had impaired his mental faculties. It was also mentioned that Bibhuti Babu never knew about the Will or its contents. The said Will, it was urged, was brought into existence long after the death of Bibhuti Babu. In short, the Caveat actor contended that the Will propounded by the petitioner was a rank act of forgery. ( 2 ) THE learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Birbhum, who heard the matters, ultimately after it became contentious, dismissed the suit. His conclusion was that Bibhuti Babu had no physical and mental capacity to execute any Will. He further found that the Will in question was a forged document. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has preferred this appeal against that Judgment and decree of the learned Court below. ( 4 ) IT is an established principle of law that the propounder must prove the due execution of the Will. It must a1so be proved that the Will was executed by the Testator of his free will, while having full testamentary capacity. Along with that, the propounder must also dispel or explain away the auspicious circumstances, if any. In this case, the Will in question has been proved by three witnesses, including the propounder herself. P. W. 1 is the petitioner propounder. She has proved that Bibhuti Babu executed the Will of his free Will. She has named the witnesses who were present on the occasion. In this case, the Will in question has been proved by three witnesses, including the propounder herself. P. W. 1 is the petitioner propounder. She has proved that Bibhuti Babu executed the Will of his free Will. She has named the witnesses who were present on the occasion. Kali Kinkar Sadhu, Narayan Chandra Ghati, Biswanath and Kalu are named by her as the witnesses present on the occasion. In a general way, she has proved the Will. There is no reason to disbelieve her. It is no doubt true that in her evidence, she has stated that her husband himself wrote about the document. It transpired that P. W. 2, Biswanath Mukherjee, in fact scribed the Will. But to our mind, this is not a real infirmity in her evidence. The village rustic women often make confusion between execution and scribing. We cannot make much on the basis of their mode of understanding and the way of expression. The substance of the fact we have got from her and it is that Bibhuti babu himself executed the Will P. W. 2, Biswanath Mukherjee, is the next witness. He wrote the Will as well as he was an attesting witness of the same Will. His evidence is that Bibhuti babu himself executed the Will on the 28th Jaistha 1376 B. S. It has been given out by him that he scribed the Will under the instructions of Babhuti babu. He deposes that he read over and explained the contents of the Will to Bibhuti babu and the latter also personally read the Will. Bibhuti babu, as stated by the witness, signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of the other persons- Kali Kinkar Sadhu, Harendra Nath Gharai and Narayan Chandra Ghati. This Narayan Chandra Ghati is a son-in-law of Bibhuti babu, and he also signed as an attesting witness. P. W. 2 has clearly affirmed that Bibhuti babu executed the Will of his own volition and at the time of the execution of that Will he was physically fit and mentally alert. From his cross-examination, we get that he was sent for by Bibhuti babu through Kalu, P. W 4. That Kalu has supported the version of P W. 2. It is to be noticed that P. W. 2 is the son of the preceptor of Bibhuti babu. From his cross-examination, we get that he was sent for by Bibhuti babu through Kalu, P. W 4. That Kalu has supported the version of P W. 2. It is to be noticed that P. W. 2 is the son of the preceptor of Bibhuti babu. Therefore it was quite natural for Bibhuti Babu to send for him and to repose special trust in him. Some criticisms have been levelled against his evidence. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 3 has argued that this witness has stated that Bibhuti Babu was physically and mentally fit, but it has come out in evidence that the person was ailing for long. It did not appear that much turns upon that. Again, that is a mode of expression. Village people often exaggerate and overstress upon certain matters. While P. W. 2 has stated that Bibhuti babu was physically and mentally fit, he has also answered that the person a patient of gout and suffering from pain occasionally. Therefore, it does not appear that there is any attempt at concealment and distortion of facts. Similarly, P. W. 1, the propounder, has stated that Bibhuti babu was fit. But at the same time, she has made it clear that though her husband was not paralytic, he was a cripple due to gout. Therefore there is no scope for criticisms that the witnesses are stating falsely. They have given out the whole picture of the ailment, but have described the same in their own way. Nothing depends upon the technical construction of some ipse dixits here and there. Again, Mr. Chatterjee has argued that according to P. W. 2. , the Will was written under the instructions of Bibhuti babu. But later, the witness has clarified that Bibhuti babu himself dictated the Will and he wrote it out. It would be futile to be invo1ved in the controversy as to whether dictation also includes instructions, but the facts that took place on that occasion have clearly been stated. P W 3, Nathan Chandra Ghati is another attesting witness of the Will. He is, as referred to before, a son-in-law of Bibhuti babu. It is his evidence that after the Will was scribed, Bibhuti babu asked this scribe to read the Will. The Will was read and then Bibhuti babu signed the Will in presence of himself and the other witnesses. He is, as referred to before, a son-in-law of Bibhuti babu. It is his evidence that after the Will was scribed, Bibhuti babu asked this scribe to read the Will. The Will was read and then Bibhuti babu signed the Will in presence of himself and the other witnesses. It is his evidence that after the Will was scribed, Bibhuti babu himself read the Will. Then, so he gives the account, Bibhuti babu was physically fit and mentally alert. The expression 'physically fit' has again given rise to criticisms that the witness is not a trust worthy one. But again and again we come across the same picture the village witnesses are not trained to use the proper expressions. For P. W. 3 himself has given in chief that before the death of his father-in-law, Bibhuti Babu was bed-ridden due to gout but not due to paralysis. There is then no obscurity about the situation, whatever might be the expressions used by the witness. The evidence of P. W. 3 must have enormous importance, because he is a son-in-law of Bibhuti Babu himself. If the Will was not genuine, he would be likely to raise objection against the claim for grant of Probate. ( 5 ) AS it appears, the Will has been sufficiently proved by important and trust worthy witnesses. One attesting witness is the son of the preceptor of Bibhuti Babu and the other is a son-in-law. ( 6 ) AS regards the evidence on behalf of the defendant, there is only the evidence of O. P. W. 2, who is the defendant No. 3. Before examining her evidence, the Other witnesses examined on her side may be dismissed, because they do not speak on a point relevant for the purpose of this enquiry O. P. W 1 is Haradhan Sk. , who claims to have purchased some land from the defedant No 3. It is his assertion that by purchase, he is in possession of the lands. It seems that the witness has been called only to bolster up the claim of the defendant No. 3 that she inherited the properties of Bibhuti Babu and disposed of them in her own way. But whether she purported to sell to O. P. W. 1 or not, would have no bearing. The law will take its own course. It seems that the witness has been called only to bolster up the claim of the defendant No. 3 that she inherited the properties of Bibhuti Babu and disposed of them in her own way. But whether she purported to sell to O. P. W. 1 or not, would have no bearing. The law will take its own course. If Bibhuti Babu executed a Will, the purchase by O. P W. 1 of a portion of the properties left by Bibhuti Babu would be of no avail. O. P. W. 3 is a witness coming to prove that Gobinda Halder, the father of Baidyanath Halder, executed a Deed of Gift in Baidayanath's favour. Baidyanath is the husband of the defendant No. 3. We do not see what utility this witness has if it supports anybody's case, it supports to some extent the case of the petitioner. It is complained that the dispositions were not equal and the defendant No. 3 got less by the Will, than she should have. The explanation on behalf of the petitioner is that as the defendant No. 3 was in affluent circumstances, she was given less. The evidence of O. P. W. 3 rather lends a real character to the Will. However, whether the Will was natural or not, is not the direct question. If the Will is proved, natural or unnatural, it must prevail. In any case, O. P. W. 3 does not improve the case of the defendant No. 3. Now we come to the evidence of O. P W. 2, the defendant No. 3. She has denied the Will. She has also stated that before his death, her father became paralytic due to gout. So there her evidence is in consonance with the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner. However, she has not clearly stated that Bibhuti Babu had no mental faculties to execute the Will. On the contrary, during her cross examination, she has suggested that Bibhuti Babu had disposing capacity. She has answered in her cross-examination that about 5 or 6 months before the death of her father, she knew that he had the intention to give some property to her. That indicates that Bibhuti Babu had the mental faculties to make disposition of properties. She has answered in her cross-examination that about 5 or 6 months before the death of her father, she knew that he had the intention to give some property to her. That indicates that Bibhuti Babu had the mental faculties to make disposition of properties. It is also to be noticed that the signatures of Bibhuti Babu in the Will have not been denied either by her or by any witness called her behalf. So far as she herself is concerned, it can be contended that being an illiterate lady, it was not for her to deny the signatures. But she could call witnesses to deny the signatures. The signatures of Bibhuti Babu, so to say, have not been actually challenged. Then this O. P. W. 2 was very eager to disown P. W. 2 Biswanath Mukherjee. In her chief, she has categorically stated that she never saw any man named Biswanath Mukherjee in the house of her father But in her Cross-examination she has clearly answered that Biswanath Mukherjee is the "gurubhai" of her father. Biswanath Mukherjee, as stated by her, also used to visit her father's house after the death of the Gurudeb of her father. Thus, it appears that this O. P. W. 2 is suffering from some complex with regard to the true state of things shrouding the Will. That fact comes once more in her evidence she has answered that in the Majlish of the execution of the Will, she was present. Thus unconsciously she has practically admitted the execution of the Will. No doubt she has corrected herself in the next sentence and has hurried to make amends by stating that there wan no Will. In any case, it is evident that she has not come out with full facts and is keen to avoid many facts. ( 7 ) IN our view, the cogent evidence led by the petitioner has not been sufficiently converted by the evidence on the side of the defendant No 3. The only witness on the relevant point is defendant No. 3 herself and she has left many vital facts uncovered. ( 8 ) MR. Tarak Nath Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to certain decisions. First he has referred to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 133. The only witness on the relevant point is defendant No. 3 herself and she has left many vital facts uncovered. ( 8 ) MR. Tarak Nath Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to certain decisions. First he has referred to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 133. It is laid down there that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a Will by Section 63 of the Succession Act. The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus In this case, the witnesses for the petitioner have proved the signatures of the testator, as also the testamentary capacity. On the other hand, the defendant No. 3 has not challenged either of these. Therefore, in the absence of suspicious circumstances, the facts proved by the petitioner should be sufficient for getting the Probate. ( 9 ) THE next decision cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant is reported in A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 1202. There, when it was proved that the testatrix was of sound mind though physically incapable of signing her name, the testatrix having bequeathed all her property in favour of her brother's grand son in whom she reposed full confidence, on facts the Will was found valid as auspicious circumstances were proved. This decision is an authority for the principle that merely because of physical informity, a Will cannot be nullified. The case reported in A. I. R. 1983 Punjab and Haryana, 373, also cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant, is of not much relevance for the present purpose. There the execution of a Will by a deaf and dumb person was the matter for consideration. ( 10 ) MR. Tarun Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 3, has referred to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 529, for the proposition that the propounder must remove the suspicious circumstances. That nodoubt is the law. ( 10 ) MR. Tarun Chatterjee, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 3, has referred to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 529, for the proposition that the propounder must remove the suspicious circumstances. That nodoubt is the law. But it is to be borne in mind that the suspicion must be rational and not the suspicion of a feeble or a sceptical mind. We have not so far noticed any suspicious circumstances. The only factum that appears to evoke some interest is that the Will is produced for obtaining Probate about 11 years after its execution. That may not be very normal, but by itself it cannot be called a suspicious circumstances. The village people are sometimes found to be slack and inactive about these matters. Merely because there was delay it does not lead one to the conclusion that by itself is a suspicious circumstances. Then Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the fact that the Doctor, who is said to have been present on the occasion, has not been examined. It is not found why the doctor should be examined. The doctor was not made an attesting witness. It is not necessary that the plaintiff must examine all the persons happening to be present on that occasion. The plaintiff has undoubtedly examined very important persons in this regard as witnesses. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 8 has referred to another decision reported in AIR 1985 Cal 349 . That decision lays down that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances, surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator is sufficient to discharge the onus. It has already been observed that the execution of the Will and the testamentary capacity of the testator have been proved by cogent evidence. It has also been noticed that although there was a long delay, that by itself, could not be considered a suspicious circumstances. If the Will was produced just during the proceeding commenced by the opponent, the matter would have been different. But here the Will has been produced by the propounder herself, though after sufficient delay. We reiterate that the Will has been proved beyond all doubts and suspicious circumstances in fact exist. If the Will was produced just during the proceeding commenced by the opponent, the matter would have been different. But here the Will has been produced by the propounder herself, though after sufficient delay. We reiterate that the Will has been proved beyond all doubts and suspicious circumstances in fact exist. That being the position, the learned court below was not justified in dismissing the case for Probate. ( 11 ) MR. Gouranga Sundar Sarkar, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has also supported the case of the petitioner for the grant of Probate. ( 12 ) BEFORE parting, we noted that in the Trial Court an issue regarding the provisions of the Land Reforms Act was framed, but not ultimately dealt with. Possibly that was not pressed. We also do not find that Section 14m of the Land Reforms Act has got anything to do. The question of ceiling will not be relevant for the purpose of: determining whether a valid Will was executed. Moreover, it appears that the Will in question was executed even before the coming into operation of that provision. ( 13 ) WE are satisfied. that the plaintiff has proved her case for getting the Probate The appeal is allowed on contest. The Judgment and decree of the Learned Court below, dismissing the case for Probate, are hereby set aside. ( 14 ) THE plaintiff's case for Probate is allowed on contest. Let a Probate of the Will, with a copy of the Will annexed to it be granted to the plaintiff's filling the necessary Court Fees on the basis of the Collector's report and on her filling the Estate Duty Clearance Certificate, if necessary. ( 15 ) THE parties to bear their own costs s. P. Das Ghosh, J. I agree. Appeal allowed.