This miscellaneous first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.85 passed by the Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in Tes­tamentary Suit No. 4 of 1982 dismissing the suit holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff/appellant was not entitled to the grant of probate of the will in question and also not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the suit. 2. The facts of the case are that late Dr. Amarendra Kumar Chakraborty, husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent, was a railway Doctor. He used to reside in Railway quarter at Karimganj in the district of Cachar. He died on 2.2.81 at his residence at Karimganj. Late Dr. Amarendra Kumar Chakraborty had been suffering from various ailments for several years prior to his death. On 28.1.81 late Dr. Chakraborty executed a will and that was claimed to be the last will of Dr. Chakraborty by the appellant. This will was registered on the date of execution. At the time of his death, he left behind his wife, the first respondent and his minor daughter - the second respondent. He also left behind his brothers Arabinda Chakraborty and Anil Kumar Chakraborty. By the said will he appointed the appellant -Bimalendu Das, a local Advocate as executor. As per the will the first respondent was totally disinherited, however, his minor daughter (second respondent) was given certain benefits from the property. 3. After the death of the testator- Dr. Chakraborty, the appellant filed an application for grant of probate of the will before the District Judge, Cachar, Silchar (Miscellaneous Case No. 141/81) which was subsequently renumbered as Tes­tamentary Suit No. 4/82. The appellant was not in any way related either to the testator or to any of his relations. In the will, late Dr. Chakraborty bequeathed his properties to his two brothers besides certain benefits to his minor daughter-second respondent. The reason mentioned in the will for totally disinheriting the wife was that she did not take care of him when he was lying ill and suddenly without his knowledge and information left the house with his minor daughter by taking away the ornaments and savings, therefore, he had no faith on her. 4. After usual notice, the respondents filed their written statement. 4. After usual notice, the respondents filed their written statement. In the written statement the respondents denied the execution of the will in question and also denied that the will annexed to the petition was the last will of her late husband. She further stated that the alleged will was a forged document and the contents of the said document were not known to her husband - the testator. It was not written at the instance of her husband. In short, the will was a false and fabricated document created by the propounder of the will in collusion with the brothers of her late husband for their common benefit to grab the entire property of her husband depriving her and her minor daughter. She further challenged that at the time of execution of the will her late husband was in sound and disposing state of mind and had the capacity to make the will. At the time of his death he was in helpless condition and completely under the domination and influence of his brother and they took the advantage of his mental incapacity, because of his illness. She further stated that the contents of the will was totally false. She also denied that she left her husband with her minor daughter as alleged. According to her, she was married to Dr. Chakraborty after obtaining her Graduation Science and used to reside in the Railway quarter. The brothers of her husband were living separately at different places, one at Karimganj and another at Badarpur. After the marriage both the first respondent and her husband purchased valuable movable properties according to their choice. The elder brother of her husband-Arabind Kr. Chakraborty was serving as TTE in NF Railway and his Headquarter was at Badarpur. The younger brother - Anil Kr. Chakraborty was leading a reckless life residing at Subhashnagar, Karimganj. The first respondent's mother-in-law died about 6/7 years ago and her husband performed the 'sradha' ceremony at Railway quarter and Arabinda Kr. Chakraborty also performed 'sradha' ceremony at his residence at Badarpur. The relation among the brothers and her husband was not good. Her husband being sick used to treat himself. About two years before the death of her husband, the first respondent and her husband went to Calcutta for treatment and they stayed there for a month. Chakraborty also performed 'sradha' ceremony at his residence at Badarpur. The relation among the brothers and her husband was not good. Her husband being sick used to treat himself. About two years before the death of her husband, the first respondent and her husband went to Calcutta for treatment and they stayed there for a month. The second respondent was born on 11.8.69 and she was very much affectionate to her father. 5. In December 1980 her mother, who was at Lumding became seriously ill. Her husband though not keeping well decided to visit Lumding to see her ailing mother. For that late Dr Chakraborty applied for railway pass for himself and for the respondents. However, as her husband was not feeling well and accordingly he postponed the journey on 5.12.80 and thereafter gave up the idea of visiting Lumding. Later on they decided that the first respondent with the minor daughter would visit her mother at Lumding. Accordingly the first respondent with second respondent went to Lumding on 10.12.80. The first respondent could not return immediately as she visited her mother after one year and she remained there. She was awaiting to know the condition of her husband and in case the condition of her husband deteriorated she would rush back immediately. Meanwhile, the minor daughter fell seriously ill and therefore the first respondent had to continue her stay at the residence of her mother and could not return. The first respondent did not receive any information about the death of her husband and she came to know it only in the first week of February 1981 and immediately she rushed back to her railway quarter where she and her husband used to reside. 6. On coming there, she came to know that her husband was removed to Subhashnagar residence, therefore, she went to Subhashnagar residence where she was greeted with all hostility and prohibited her from entering into the house by Anil Kr. Chakraborty, the younger brother of her husband. Situated thus, she had to take shelter in the house of one Rajendra Bhattacharjee, an elderly man serving in NF Railway at Karimganj Railway Colony. She also alleged that her husband was not given proper treatment during his last days. On the other hand, the brothers of her late husband with the help of propounder forced her husband to sign the alleged will. She also alleged that her husband was not given proper treatment during his last days. On the other hand, the brothers of her late husband with the help of propounder forced her husband to sign the alleged will. According to her the husband of the first respondent was not mentally sound to execute the will and the will annexed to the petition was unconscionable document. The contents of the documents are false and on the basis of such document the probate cannot be granted. 7. On the pleadings five issues were framed. During trial the appellant/Plaintiff examined five witnesses including himself and the respondent side examined four witnesses including the first respondent. The learned Additional District Judge after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 8. I have heard both sides. Mr. S.R. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the will was a registered document and the testator put his signature in presence of all the witnesses and there is nothing to disbelieve the said witnesses. Besides PWs 3 and 4 are disinterested witnesses and no suggestion was put to them why they should depose falsely. Mr. Bhattacharjee however submits that although the respondents challenged the genuineness of the will and also contended that the will was false and fabricated and created collusively to deprive the legitimate claim of the respondents, no attempt was made to prove that the will was not a genuine document. Besides, the Sub Registrar (PW-2) registered the will. He categorically stated that he was present at the time of registration and he asked the testator whether he executed the will (Ext-1) and in reply the testator admitted and thereafter he put his signature and thumb impression. The testator was identified by his brother Anil Kr. Chakraborty. Besides, at the time of execution of the will though the testator was not physically fit but he was mentally absolutely fit. The deprivation of the property to the wife (first respondent) cannot be the ground for suspicion because of the fact that she did not look after her husband- the testator. From the evidence it is clear that the first respondent left alone her ailing husband and took away all the ornaments and savings. The deprivation of the property to the wife (first respondent) cannot be the ground for suspicion because of the fact that she did not look after her husband- the testator. From the evidence it is clear that the first respondent left alone her ailing husband and took away all the ornaments and savings. In this connection, a First Information Report was lodged by the testator alleging that the first respondent left with Rajendra Bhattacharjee to his father-in-law's house taking Rs. 20,000/- and ornament worth Rs. 20,000/-. This FIR was lodged on 29.12.80. 9. On the other hand, Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submits that creation of the will is shrouded with suspicion in as much as the propounder of the will is one of the beneficiaries. He being a lawyer not related in any way, the suspicion is more. Depriving the legitimate heirs, viz; the wife of the testator, is one of the important conditions which may lead to the suspicion. No attempt was made by the propounder of the will to dispel the suspicion and therefore the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the suit. Now the question falls for determination in this case is whether the will (Ext-1) can be accepted as a valid document and on the basis of the said will probate can be granted ? Before I discuss the evidence I feel it expedient to look into the relevant laws regarding grant of probate. 10. A propounder of a will is required to prove it to the satisfaction of Court. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and in deciding how it is to be proved, Court must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. The provisions contained in section 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for the purpose of proving a document including a will. Under section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person on the document must be proved to be in his handwriting and for proving such handwriting various modes are prescribed in the Evidence Act. Sections 45 and 47 indicate different modes of proving the signature. Under section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person on the document must be proved to be in his handwriting and for proving such handwriting various modes are prescribed in the Evidence Act. Sections 45 and 47 indicate different modes of proving the signature. Section 68 deals with the proof of execution of a document required by law to be attested and it provides that such document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least had been called for the purpose of proving the execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on the document in a Court of law. 11. Similarly, there are provisions under the Indian Succession Act which deal with the power of disposing of property by will. Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are relevant in this regard. Under section 59 every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of Ms property by will. The illustrations given in the said section indicate what is meant by the expression " a person of sound mind". Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature of mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Therefore, the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of the provisions of law mentioned above. At the time of granting a probate certain questions come up before a Court, such as, whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator, where the testator signed the will, whether he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will and whether he put his signature knowing what it contained. These are the few questions require to be scrutinized and determined by a Court. 12. These are the few questions require to be scrutinized and determined by a Court. 12. It will not be, prima facie, incorrect to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation mentioned in section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. However, it will not be proper for a Court to prove the will with mathematical precision. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. However, there is at least one distinguishing feature in case of proof of a will than that of other documents. The Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala lyengar vs. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , observed that - "Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator." 13. However, in dealing with the proof of a will the Court will proceed with the enquiry in the same manner as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator and the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind and he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and he put his signature to the document of his own free will. Normally, when the evidence adduced in support of the will through disinterested witnesses it is sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required under law and in that case the Court will be inclined to give its finding in favour of the propounder and, in other words, the onus on the propounder can be said to be discharged. 14. But, there may be cases in which the execution of the will may not be free from suspicious circumstances. The signature of the testator may be doubtful. 14. But, there may be cases in which the execution of the will may not be free from suspicious circumstances. The signature of the testator may be doubtful. The evidence in support of propounder's case that the signature in question was the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt. In some cases the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated and evidence that may be produced by the propounder may not succeed in removing the doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator. There may be cases where dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances. In such cases, the Court would naturally insist some more evidence to completely remove the suspicious circumstances. The presence of such suspi­cious circumstances at the time of execution of a will naturally make initial onus very heavily and in that case unless it is satisfactorily discharged, the Court may not incline to treat the document as a last will of the testator. It is however true that, if allegation is made regarding undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such plea shall have to be proved by the person making such allegations, but the propounder has to discharge his duty to remove the doubts in execution of the will. 15. In a case where the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of a will which confers on him substantial benefits, the execution is again shrouded with suspicion and in that case the propounder has to remove such suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. However, such evidence may be gathered from the evidence available in the record. In that case, such suspicion must be removed to the satisfaction of the Court, in other words, the propounder must withstand the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. However, no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for appreciation of the evidence Generally, it may be stated that the propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there is any suspicious circumstances in execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicion from the mind of the Court by adducing satisfactory evidence. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the parties have cited various decisions of the Apex Court in support of their contentions. I feel, it is not necessary to burden judgment by referring all the decisions of the Apex Court in view of the fact that the Apex Court has consistently held that the propounder is to prove the will like any other document in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act as well as Indian Succession Act. However, if there is any suspicious circumstances, the burden on the propounder lies heavily and he must be able to remove the suspicious cir­cumstances. The propounder has to prove the will in the manner prescribed in the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act as well as Indian Succession Act. However, if the will is shrouded with suspicion the propounder has to remove the suspicion by adducing proper and acceptable evidence, In case of suspicious circumstances the onus lies heavily on the propounder and unless such suspicion is removed the Court may not incline to accept the document as the last will of the testator and it was properly executed. When a will is registered, no doubt, it indicate its genuine­ness, but the mere fact that a will is registered is-not itself sufficient to dispel all suspicion. The Court will be reluctant to accept even a registered will if it appears to the court that such registration was done in a perfunctory manner. The suspicion has to be removed by the propounder by adducing sufficient and acceptable evidence. (See, Rani Purnima Debi vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, AIR 1962 SC 567 , (ii) Ramchandra Rambux vs. Champabai, AIR 1965 SC 354, (iii) Smti Jaswanti Kaur vs. Smti Amrit Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74 , (iv) Smli Indu Bala Base v. Manindra Chandra Bose, AIR 1982 SC 133 ). 17. No doubt, disinheriting near relation like wife is a circumstance which the courts normally view with suspicion because it is not the normal human behaviour to disentitle near relations. However, in such case, again the propounder should remove the suspicion. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes a prominent part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. Any and every circumstance is not a "suspicious" circumstance. A circumstance would be "suspicious" when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person. In Satya Pal Gopal Das vs. Smti Panchubala Dasi, AIR 1985 SC 500 , the Supreme Court held that mere disinheriting the near relation is not enough to reject the will. In Smti Malkani vs. Jamadar, AIR 1987 SC 767 , the Supreme Court held that beneficiaries of a will taking active part in execution of a will cannot be doubted mat the will was not genuine. 18. In the above premises, it is to be seen now whether in the present case the propounder of the will has been able to prove the execution of the will beyond doubt. The will has totally disinherited the testator's wife - the first respondent, however, some benefits were given to his minor daughter - the second respondent. The benefits were given mainly to the brothers of the testator and also to the propounder, the appellant. 19. PW-1, Bimalendu Das (appellant) stated in his evidence mat about 1½ months before the death of Dr Chakraborty he was told that Dr Chakraborty's wile and daughter left him on 20.12.80 and did not return. He also told him that gold ornaments and money were taken by his wife. 19. PW-1, Bimalendu Das (appellant) stated in his evidence mat about 1½ months before the death of Dr Chakraborty he was told that Dr Chakraborty's wile and daughter left him on 20.12.80 and did not return. He also told him that gold ornaments and money were taken by his wife. He lodged an FIR with the Police on 29.12.80 against his wife. He further stated that under the will he was required to obtain probate of the will and to administer the property according to the terms of the will. He stated mat he did not know who drafted the will. He also did not see the draft. However, he was present when the scribe wrote the will. When he went to the house of the testator he found the Sub-Registrar and in his presence Dr Chakraborty put his signature. He agreed to become the executor as requested. He did not take any remuneration. The will was read over and thereafter he signed the will. It was then registered by the Sub-Registrar. He however admitted that he was authorised to take 10% of the value of the entire property of the will. According to him, the value of the property would be about Rs. 40,000/- PW-2, Pijus Kanti Das, the Sub-Registrar of Karimganj deposed that he went to the residence where Dr Chakraborty resided. He asked Dr. Chakraborty whether he executed the will (Ext-1) and in reply he admitted that the extended the will and thereafter he took the signature and thumb impression as required for registration. From the evidence it appears mat the testator had a sound and disposing state of mind. PW-3 AniJ Kumar Chakraborty, younger broach of the testator deposed that the will (Ext-1) was read over to his brother and after admitting it to be correct he put his signature on Ext-1 in his presence. This witness is also one of the attesting witnesses. He further stated that his brother was mentally in fit condition and according to his desire the will was executed. He and other relations never asked him to execute the will. He further stated that he enquired about his wife at Karimganj but did not find her. PW-4, Shantilal Das, deposed that at the time of execution of the will Dr Chakraborty had sound and disposing state of mind. The will was executed in his presence. He and other relations never asked him to execute the will. He further stated that he enquired about his wife at Karimganj but did not find her. PW-4, Shantilal Das, deposed that at the time of execution of the will Dr Chakraborty had sound and disposing state of mind. The will was executed in his presence. PW-5, Promode Ch Chowdhury, is a businessman at Karimganj. He also stated that on 28.1.81 he was called by Dr. Chakraborty at about 3.45 pm and accordingly he went there. One clerk wrote the will in his presence and it was read over to Dr Chakraborty, who then put his signature. Thereafter, this witness put his signature as attesting witness. 20. The respondent/defendant examined four witness. DW-1, Rajendra Ch Bhattacharjee, deposed that Dr. Chakrabroty was known to him and he had visiting terms. He further stated that on 10.12.80 Dr. Chakraborty told him that his wife and daughter left for Lumding as his mother-in-law was ailing. On that day he was in Railway station yard duty. Dr. Chakraborty came to railway station to see off his wife and daughter. The first respondent also requested this witness to provide meals to Dr. Chakraborty at his residence in her absence. Accordingly he used to provide meals to Dr Chakraborty at his residence in her absence. Accordingly he used to provide meals to Dr Chakraborty till 29.12.80 on which date his house was searched by the police in connection with the FIR lodged by Dr. Chakraborty. The police did not find anything in his house. Ext-B is the copy of the search certificate. In cross-examination he stated that the cahier was lodged by Dr Chakraborty. DW-2, Asit Kumar Roy, a junior officer of the State Bank of India, Karimganj Branch, produced a ledger copy of the Bank account of Dr Chakraborty. DW-3, Nirmal Jyoti Bhattacharjee, an Upper Division Assistant of the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Karimganj stated that PW-1 submitted a petition on 28.1.81 before the Sub-Registrar to register a will on commission. Ext -F is the said petition. He further stated that he deposed from the Fee Book. In cross examination he stated that PW-1 used to visit his office and saw him signing in previous occasions. He is also a neighbour. He wrote the Ext-F in the office in his presence. The Sub-Registrar went to Railway quarter two days. He did not accompany the Sub-Registrar. He further stated that he deposed from the Fee Book. In cross examination he stated that PW-1 used to visit his office and saw him signing in previous occasions. He is also a neighbour. He wrote the Ext-F in the office in his presence. The Sub-Registrar went to Railway quarter two days. He did not accompany the Sub-Registrar. DW-4, Smti Manjusri Chakravarty, (first respondent) is the wife of Dr. Chakraborty. She deposed that her husband Dr Chakraborty did not like his two brothers. Her mother-in-law died before her husband and her husband performed her "Sradha' ceremony, In her cross-examination she stated that her husband's ailment became acute after three years of their marriage. She admitted that there was a case against her, lodged by her husband. She gave her statement on oath before the Judicial Magistrate in the criminal case. She further admitted that a criminal cased was filed by her husband against her alleging that she left the house with ornaments and other valuable articles at the instance of Rajendra Bhattacharjee and his son Rongtu. She also admitted that there was a special Railway communication between Lumding and Karimganj. She further stated that none of the railway employees nor any of her husband's relatives had any information about the ailment of her husband. 21. From the evidence quoted above, it emerges mat Dr Chakraborty was suffering from gastric ailment for a considerable period and during his illness in December, 1980 his wife, first respondent, left for Lumding with his daughter - the second respondent. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on 29.12.80 against the first respondent by the testator alleging that the first Respondent along with Rajendra Bhattacharjee (DW-1) left for her parent's house taking Rs. 20,000/- cash and ornaments worth Rs. 20,000/-. The condition of the testator deteriorated thereafter and he was shifted to the residence at Subashnagar. On 28.1.81 he executed the will, which according to the plaintiff (appellant) was the last will of the testator. About eight days thereafter the testator died and on 5.2.81 the first respondent came to Karimganj. 22. The appellant in his evidence specifically stated that the will was executed by Dr Chakraborty. He stated that at the time of execution of the will he was in sound and disposing state of mind. This statement was corroborated by other witnesses, viz. PWs -3,4 and 5. 22. The appellant in his evidence specifically stated that the will was executed by Dr Chakraborty. He stated that at the time of execution of the will he was in sound and disposing state of mind. This statement was corroborated by other witnesses, viz. PWs -3,4 and 5. The evidence further shows that the will (Ext-1) was read over to Dr Chakraborty, thereafter he executed the will. The defendants have not denied the signature of the testator on the will (Ext-1). The Sub-Registrar (PW-2) also confirmed that Dr. Chakraborly executed the will on his own and at the time of execution of the will he was in sound and disposing state of mind. 23. PWs 4 and 5 are disinterested witnesses, except few suggestions nothing could be brought out that the will was fraudulently executed. DW-1-Rajendra Ch Bhattacharjee, against whom the allegation was made by the testator that his wife left him with his son to Lumding taking money and other valuable articles. DWs 2 and 3 have not stated anything about the execution of the will. DW-3 only stated that PW-1 filed a petition for execution of the will on commission before the Sub-Registrar and the Sub-Registrar went to the residence of the testator on two days. His evidence only indicates that PW-1 took active part by filing a petition to register the will on commission. The first respondent in her evidence however tried to justify her journey to Lumding. She stated that her mother was ill and she wanted to return immediately but as her daughter fell ill she could not return immediately. 24. Before this Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respon­dents tries to show that the will was shrouded with suspicion on two grounds. First, the propounder of the will (PW-1) being an Advocate took active part in execution of the will and also as per the will he was given a share of 19% of the total value of the property. Secondly, the wife being the nearest relation she was totally disinherited, therefore, the execution of the will is not beyond suspicion, on the other hand, it is shrouded with suspicion and the propounder could not remove the suspicious circumstances. As stated above, the execution of the will has been proved in the Court by at least some disinterested witnesses, like PWs 2, 4 and 5. As stated above, the execution of the will has been proved in the Court by at least some disinterested witnesses, like PWs 2, 4 and 5. They stated that the testator put his signature on the will and at that time he had sound and disposing state of mind. This being the position, in my opinion, the execution of the will is proved. The onus of proving the execution of the will by the propounder has been duly discharged. 25. Next suspicious circumstances in this case is totally disinheriting the first respondent. The evidence on record shows that her husband was lying ill but she left the house in December 1980 taking money and valuable ornaments. The testator filed an FIR against the first respondent and she admitted this in her deposition. The testator died on 2.2.81 and till then she did not care to make any enquiry about the health of her husband, who was ailing when she left for Lumding. Immediately after the death of the testator, she rushed back to Karimganj on 5.2.81. This itself is sufficient to indicate that the first respondent had completely neglected her husband. This could be a reason for disinheriting the wife. Leaving the husband in ailing condition and not returning thereafter for more than a month without taking any interest and filing an FIR by the testator against his wife are sufficient circumstances to remove the suspicion regarding disinheriting the first respondent. 25. The learned Additional District Judge, however, found it difficult to believe that without the knowledge and consent of the propounder, the testator would not appoint him as executor and also entrust him to deal with his money after his death and give him the responsibility to decide the fate of his minor daughter. He also found certain contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. He found that the evidence are inconsistent, besides, according to him, the propounder being a practicing Advocate had deliberately made false statement in support of his claim for probate. He further found fault in the will because the propounder was given a share of the property. He also disbelieved other PWs and found that some suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of the will. 26. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the onus of proving the execution of the will by the propounder has been duly discharged. He also disbelieved other PWs and found that some suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of the will. 26. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the onus of proving the execution of the will by the propounder has been duly discharged. There is sufficient evidence to remove the suspicion for disinheriting the first respondent. From the evidence also it appears that the value of the property was Rs. 40,000/- and the propounder-appellant was given a share of 10% of the total value of the property and this share is Rs. 4,000/- only. There is nothing unusual in my opinion. 27. For the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment passed by the Additional District Judge is not sustainable, I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and grant probate as prayed for. In the facts and circumstances of the case mere will be no order as to costs.