JUDGMENT A. N. Dikshita, J 1. Smt. Prigya Sharma, defendant-appellant (hereinafter called the appellant) being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-9- 1985 passed by Sri M. K. Mittal, Ilnd Additional District Judge, Jhansi in Misc. Case No. 51 of 1982 has preferred this first appeal from order for setting aside the said judgment and decree by which respondent no. 1 SMT. Dropti Sharma was granted probate on the basis of the will dated 18-6-1980 executed by Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. 2. Facts in brief are that respondent no. 1 filed an application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of a probate in respect of the estate of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma who had executed a will on 18-6-1980 at Bulandshahr in her favour. Sri Girish Chandra Sharma expired on 7-10-1988 at Jhansi. It was alleged by the respondent no. 1 that, she is the only legatee of the will. The property in respect of which brobate has been prayed for consists of a house and accounts in State Bank of India, Allahabad Bank and Central Bank. To buttress her contention that she is the only legatee a photostat copy of the will has been filed. Sri Vikram Singh, a retired District Judge is the scribe of the will while Sri Brahma Singh, Advocate, Bulandshahr and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha who was then posted as Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr are the attesting witnesses of the will (Sri V. S. Kulshrestha was later promoted as District Judge but has since expired). 3. Earlier vide judgment and order dated 26-8-1983 a probate was granted ex-parte and consequent thereto the respondent no. 1 withdrew the amount which stood in deposit in the Allahabad Bank. 4. However, later Smt. Prigya Sharma, appellant on coming to know of the ex-parte order dated 26-8-1983 filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order which was allowed and the case was restored to its number for disposal according to law. Appellant Smt. Prigya Devi filed necessary objections on 11-5-1984 against the application filed by respondent no. 1 (Smt. Dropti Sharma) for the grant of the probate in the latter's favour. It was alleged that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma did not execute any will on 18-6- 1980 and the photo copy filed by the respondent no. 1 in the court is fictitious only to frustrate her interest share in the property. 1 (Smt. Dropti Sharma) for the grant of the probate in the latter's favour. It was alleged that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma did not execute any will on 18-6- 1980 and the photo copy filed by the respondent no. 1 in the court is fictitious only to frustrate her interest share in the property. It was also alleged that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma on the date when the will is alleged to be executed was not in a fit condition either physically or mentally and could not have as such executed a will. It was also alleged that the said will has not been properly attested. It was further alleged that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma was a permanent resident of Jhansi and there was hardly any occasion for him to go to Bulandshahr for the execution of the will. The attesting witnesses to the will are close friends of the family and respondent no. 1 and have thus become witnesses to the execution of the will being under the influence of the respondent no. 1. It was moreover alleged that at the time when her father (Sri Girish Chanda Sharma) expired, there was no talk with her mother Smt. Dropti Sharma, respondent no. 1 and her other sister Smt Urmila Tiwari in regard to the will. Further more it is alleged that the son of Smt. Urmila Tiwari filed a fictitious vakalatnama on her behalf to show that that she had no objection which resulted in the decision of the case ex-parte. However, she gave a notice for the partition of the property which remained unreplied. Before dwelling upon the merits of the case it may be mentioned that respondent no. 1 Smt. Dropti Sharma is the wife of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma and appellant Smt. Prigya Sharma and respondent no. 2 Smt. Urmila Tiwari are the daughters of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. 5. To buttress support to her case Vikram Singh AW 1 was produced by respondent no. 1. Vikram Singh AW 1 is the scribe of the will. He has testified that the photostat copy of that will is before him. He has deposed that the will bears the signatures of Brahma Singh, Advocate and Sri P. S. Kulshrestha as attesting witnesses. To buttress support to her case Vikram Singh AW 1 was produced by respondent no. 1. Vikram Singh AW 1 is the scribe of the will. He has testified that the photostat copy of that will is before him. He has deposed that the will bears the signatures of Brahma Singh, Advocate and Sri P. S. Kulshrestha as attesting witnesses. These two persons Brahma Singh Advocate and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha had signed on the original will which was prepared by this witness AW 1 before him and he recognises their signatures. This witness has categorically stated that the photostat copy produced in court is the photostat copy of the original will and bears his signatures as well as that of Sri Brahma Singh, Advocate and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha, Addl. District Judge. It is thus clear that Vikram Singh AW 1 has proved the photostate copy of the will and the execution of the will by Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. A perusal of the photostat copy of the will does not appear to be either a forged or a manipulated document. It bears the signature of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Appellant alleged that her father Sri Girish Chandra Sharma never signed in English and used to sign in Hindi but later on wriggled out of this statement by deposing that she does not know if her father Sri Girish Chandra Sharma signed on the document (passport) produced in court as paper no. 77/B. The genuineness of this document has not been questioned by the appellant. This passport bears the signatures of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma and a comparison of the signatures on the passport and that the photostat copy of the will are similar and are the authorship of the one and the same person. Specimen signatures of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma was summoned from the Allahabad Bank, Jhansi which is paper no. 86/B. There is no dispute that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma had an account in Allahabad Bank, Jhansi. A comparision of the signatures on the photostat copy of the will with that of the specimen signature with the Allahabad Bank, Jhansi Branch, are also of the one and the same person. It is thus abundantly clear that the photostat copy of the will bears the signature of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. A comparision of the signatures on the photostat copy of the will with that of the specimen signature with the Allahabad Bank, Jhansi Branch, are also of the one and the same person. It is thus abundantly clear that the photostat copy of the will bears the signature of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Further the signature of the attesting witnesses Sri Brahma Singh, Advocate and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha have been proved as also the signature of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma on the photostat copy of the will. They are the attesting witnesses. Vikram Singh AW 1 has cotegorically stated that Sri Girish Chandra Shagma visited Buland- shahr in June 1980 where the former expressed his desire to execute a will thus showing the mind of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Smt. Dropti Sharma respondent no. 1 has also stated that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma did visit Bulandshar in June 1980 and he was at that time enjoying a good health being hale and hearty. This statement has been contradicted by the appellant who appeared as OPW 1 on the ground that she has visited Jhansi some time in May, June 1980 when she found her father ill. However, no material or record has been produced on behalf of the appellant to show that her father was ill or had been advised not to move. 6. APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh has categorically stated that Sri Girish Sharma did got to him to Bulandshahr in June 1980. Such a statement hardly requires any disbelief. It has also been stated by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma did execute the will and he was mentally sound. Another fact as is revealing from the evidence of APW 2 (respondent no. 1) is wholly credible when she has deposed that appellant Smt. Prigya Sharma visited Jhansi 4 days after the death of her husband. She, had come to Jhansi on that day after a lapse of 18 years. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that sons of respondent no. 2 had obtained the signatures on the Vakalatnama. This signature is alleged to have been fictitiously prepared. However, it has no relevance with the execution of the will by Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Sri Girish Chandra Sharma has bequeathed his entire property to his wife Smt. Dropti Devi, respondent no. 2 had obtained the signatures on the Vakalatnama. This signature is alleged to have been fictitiously prepared. However, it has no relevance with the execution of the will by Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Sri Girish Chandra Sharma has bequeathed his entire property to his wife Smt. Dropti Devi, respondent no. 1, and it is wholly natural for a person to give his entire property to his wife who may not have to seek help or support from others. Coupled with this fact it is not disputed that both the daughters of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma, appellant Smt. Prigya Sharma and respondent no. 2 Smt. Urmila Tiwari are quite affluent, and this may also prevailed on the mind of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma to give his entire property to his wife Smt. Dropti Sharma, respondent no. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has then submitted that the original will has not been produced. It has come in the evidence which cannot be doubted when APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh categorically admits that he had brought the original will to Jhansi on the 13th day ceremony after the death of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. This original document was handed over by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh to respondent no. 1 Smt. Dropti Sharma who in turn handed it over to one Ram Swaroop who was a confident pupil of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma who had prepared photostate copies of the will. The original will was lost by Ram Swaroop. Mere non production of the original will would not cast any doubt or suspicion when APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh has clearly stated that the photostat copy which is filed in the Court is that of the original will bearing the signature of Sri Girish Chand Sharma and besides his signatures it bears the signature or the attesting witnesses. From the facts shown neither there is any doubt nor the facts suggest any suspicious circumstances. APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh retired as a District Judge. There is no reason as to why such a person would depose falsely and in any case nothing has come on record to discredit his testimony. His evidence does not cast any suspicion when he himself admits that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma visited him at Bulandshahr and on his wish and desire to execute a will it was scribed by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. His evidence does not cast any suspicion when he himself admits that Sri Girish Chandra Sharma visited him at Bulandshahr and on his wish and desire to execute a will it was scribed by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh has admitted that first he prepared a draft whereafter fair copy (will) was prepared. Sri Girish Chandra Sharma signed on the will in the presence of Sri Brahma Singh and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha. Sri G. C. Sharma had himself read the will. APW 1 Vikram Singh has stated that it was also read over to Sri G. C. Sharma also. Sri Brahma Singh, Advocate and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha were witnesses and had signed as attesting witnesses in the presence of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Sri Girish Chandra Sharma had also signed the will in the presence of these witnesses. A suspicion is sought to be created as to why the will was lying with APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. I do not find any merit in this submission. It is often that a person confiding in his friend leaves such documents with him. Human conduct often varies from person to person and often friends have proved to be of much better help and assistance than the family members. It is not disputed that APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh was a friend of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. A vigorous search after coming to know that the will has been lost was made by respondent no. 1 Smt. Dropti Sharma as well as by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. APW 2 (Respondent No. 1) has very clearly stated that the original will was given by her to Sri Ram Swaroop as he was a pupil and pairokar of the cases of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Jaspat Rai v. Devi Dayal, AIR 1916 Allahabad 244. No doubt the court should be strict before admitting secondary evidence in insisting on strict proof of the. loss of the document. Resp6ndent No. 1 has fully and adequately proved that the will had been lost. It has been discussed above that the will was scribed by AW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. He has also admitted that Sri G. C. Sharma signed on this document. loss of the document. Resp6ndent No. 1 has fully and adequately proved that the will had been lost. It has been discussed above that the will was scribed by AW 1 Sri Vikram Singh. He has also admitted that Sri G. C. Sharma signed on this document. He has further admitted that Sri Brahma Singh and Sri V. S. Kulshrestha were witnesses of such execution. Smt. Dropti Devi respondent No. 1 has also specifically stated that the original will which was given to her by APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh on the 13th day ceremony (after the death) of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma was handed over to Sri Ram Swaroop who was a confident person of Sri Girish Chandra Sharma being his pupil. Ram Swaroop had expired and the original will could not be traced having been lost. It was only the photostat copy which was found and was produced in Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case of Jaidu Ananta Raghuram Arya v. Rajah Bommadevara Naga Cbayadevamma, AIR 1958 AP 418 . Before admitting a secondary evidence the Court is required to decide whether there has been really a bonafide loss. It has come in the statement of APW 1 Sri Vikram Singh as well as APW 2 Smt, Dropati Devi that a search was made to trace the original document and it was only after the search having proved futile the secondary evidence was tendered. The trial court exercised the discretion having been satisfied about the loss of the original will. In any case such a discretion as has been exercised by the trial court would not ordinarily permit this Court to interfere with the exercise of such discretion of the trial court. In the aforesaid case of Ananta Raghuram v. Rajah Bommadevara (supra) it has been held as under : "No doubt permitting a party to lead secondary evidence being satisfied about the loss of the original, is a matter of discretion left to the trial court and the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of such discretion. That is the principle that has been laid down by the Privy Council in Srimati Rani Haripria v. Ruckmani Devi, 19 Ind. App. 79 (PC) (A)." 10. Once it is established that the original will bad been lost, the trial court had permitted respondent no. 1 to adduce secondary evidence. That is the principle that has been laid down by the Privy Council in Srimati Rani Haripria v. Ruckmani Devi, 19 Ind. App. 79 (PC) (A)." 10. Once it is established that the original will bad been lost, the trial court had permitted respondent no. 1 to adduce secondary evidence. The discretion has been rightly exercised and does not require any interference by this court. The appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.