NIKHIL NATH BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a probate proceeding instituted by Smt. Maya Mitra, alias Saroju Mitra, the sole executrix appointed by the last Will and Testament of the deceased dated 14th July, 1947. ( 2 ) PETITIONER's case is that the deceased Arun Ch. Mitra, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law died on 16th July, 1986 at 53, Ananda Palit Road, Calcutta-14. During his life-time the deceased executed and published his last Will and Testament in English language and character on 14th July, 1947 and appointed the petitioner the sole executrix and administrator. That the said will was duly executed by the deceased will be evident from the affidavit of Sri S. C. Dutta one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. He has also made a similar declaration at the foot of the petition. The Will in original is annexed to the petition. The deceased left behind him ( 1 ) the petitioner as his wife, (2) Tarun Kr. Mitra, a son (3) Tapan Kr. Mitra, a son and (4) Miss Manju Bose, a daughter. In view of the last Will and Testament of the deceased the petitioner is entitled to the grant of a probate with a copy of the Will annexed. ( 3 ) ON the prayer of the petitioner special and general citations were issued and in response Tarun Kr. Mitra, the eldest son of the deceased who had already filed a caveat, affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition. Wherein the caveator has denied the factum, validity, execution and attestation of the Will. It has been alleged that the deceased was a person of weak disposition. Subjugated by the Will of the wife and that the Will was not the Will of the deceased made out of his free will. As the eldest son of the deceased, the caveator used to look after the father during his life-time 0 but at no point of time his father disclosed about any such Will to have been executed by him. The alleged Will is antedated to give it a colour of genuinity. As the eldest child of the deceased he all along lived with the deceased until his death and witnessed frequent quarrels by and between the parents. The mother always wanted that the entire estate of the father would go to her and to nobody else. The alleged Will is antedated to give it a colour of genuinity. As the eldest child of the deceased he all along lived with the deceased until his death and witnessed frequent quarrels by and between the parents. The mother always wanted that the entire estate of the father would go to her and to nobody else. Father was always dominated by the mother and the father could never exercise his free Will in any matter, far to say in the matter of execution of the Will. ( 4 ) TAPAN Kr. Mitra, son and Smt. Manju Bose, daughter affirmed two separate affidavits declaring that they had no objection if the probate was granted to the mother. ( 5 ) IN her affidavit-in-reply the petitioner denied the allegations of her son stating interalia, that she knew nothing about the Will till after her husband's death when the daughter Smt. Manju Bose disclosed that the deceased had kept his said Will with her in the year 1979 directing that the Will should be probated through the petitioner without fail. She has further alleged that Binoy Kr. Bose, the second attesting witness to the said Will died in the year 1951 and as the said Will was executed in the year 1947, there was little chance of antedating the Will and all allegations in this regard must fall to the ground. She has also stated that the deceased being a practising Solicitor in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta was a man of personality and self-respect and during the matrimonial life has never allowed any body to dominate him. ( 6 ) THE question for consideration is how far the Will is genuine and duly executed and attested so much so that it is liable to be probated. ( 7 ) THE Will is annexed to the petition as Annexure-A. It is on a single sheet of crown paper typed out neatly and carefully and appears to have been signed by the testator and attested by (1) S. C. Dutta who designated himself as Capt. Ex. I. M. S. of 53 Ananda Palit Road, Cal 14 and (2) Binoy Kr. Bose of 53, Ananda Palit Road, Calcutta. Ex. I. M. S. of 53 Ananda Palit Road, Cal 14 and (2) Binoy Kr. Bose of 53, Ananda Palit Road, Calcutta. There is no denying that the deceased was a practising Solicitor of this Court and the manner in which the Will appears to have been prepared on a stout stamp paper without apparent help of a lawyer seems commensurate with the avocation in life of the deceased. ( 8 ) THREE witnesses have been examined. The propounder Smt. Maya Mitra, examined partly in Court and partly on commission says that she was not aware about the existence of the Will till her husband's death. The Will was kept in the custody of her daughter who handed it over to Sri Subodh Chandra Dutta, a Solicitor and friend of her husband who gave this Will to her. In 1947 her eldest son, the caveator was 10 years old, the daughter was seven years and the youngest son was only 2 years old. Seeing her husband's signature on the Will she could identify the same to be belonging to him. The attesting witness Sunil Ch. Dutta is a Doctor and a friend of her husband. In 1947 her husband was aged about 37-38 years and when he died in 1986 he was most probably 80 years of age. The two attesting witnesses are brothers-in-law by relation residing in the same house with the testator at that time. She had no knowledge about preparation of the Will and about its execution and attestation. She is not acquainted with the signatures of the attesting witnesses but by reading the same and on enquiry she came to know about their identities. ( 9 ) THE witness Sunil Ch. Dutta is an MBBS, DTM Doctor and was in the Army during the First World War. After release from the Army he stayed at 53, Anand Palit Road for about 2 years from 1946 to 1948. He knew the executor of the Will. He identifies his own signature as also the signatures of the testator and the other attesting witness. He says he was called by the testator on the day the document was executed, for the purpose of attestation. The testator was perfectly fit, both physically and mentally when the execution and attestation were done. He knew the executor of the Will. He identifies his own signature as also the signatures of the testator and the other attesting witness. He says he was called by the testator on the day the document was executed, for the purpose of attestation. The testator was perfectly fit, both physically and mentally when the execution and attestation were done. The testator talked to them before execution and from his talks the witness could understand that he was physically and mentally fit. He says that at the time of execution the executor was living 1 with his mother, wife and two sons. The witness is a brother of a tenant of the testator and that was the reason of how both the brothers-in-law could be the attesting witnesses. ( 10 ) CAVEATOR Tarun Kr. Mitra came to know about the Will only after his sister produced the same after death of the father and this created bitter relationship between the brother and sister. In 1947, he was ten years' old and it seems incredible that he would remember that in 1947, the parents quarrelled so much between themselves that it was improbable that his father would bequeath in favour of his mother. In answer to Court's query, he says in 1947 his father was mentally and physically fit. Although he denies his father's signature appearing on the Will to be belonging to his father. In answer to Court's query he says he never has examined the signature of his father in the Will. His father was a practising Solicitor of this Court but the caveator took no steps to examine and compare the disputed signature in the Will with any admitted or specimen signature of the father by a handwriting expert and that shows hollowness of his objection. ( 11 ) MR. A. C. Kar, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the caveator drew my attention to a number of discrepancies in the evidences and the case of the petitioner. For example, witness Sunil Ch. Dutta although stayed in the same house with the petitioner for about two years says that the testator had only two sons in 1947, but admittedly he had 2 sons and a daughter at that time. Whereas according to witness Sunil Ch. For example, witness Sunil Ch. Dutta although stayed in the same house with the petitioner for about two years says that the testator had only two sons in 1947, but admittedly he had 2 sons and a daughter at that time. Whereas according to witness Sunil Ch. Dutta, the testator was fifty-five years in 1947, but according to Maya Mitra the testator died at the age of eighty (80) in 1986 and so his age was about forty-one (41) years in 1947. There are also discrepancies about whether Sunil Ch. Dutta and Binoy Kumar Bose were tenants or not and how many rooms in the ground floor were under their occupation. Smt. Maya Mitra has contradicted the evidence of the other witness when she says that neither Binoy Kr. Bose nor Sunil Ch. Dutta was a tenant in the premises. Mr. Kar made much of the Will coming from the custody of the daughter asserting that in 1947, the daughter was only seven years old and giving custody of the Will at so young age is an absurd proposition. But there are materials on record that in 1979, the Will was handed, over to the daughter by the testator himself for safe custody. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to the attesting witness his sister was a tenant in the premises where the Will was executed but according to the propounder the attesting witnesses never stayed in premises No. 50, Ananda Palit Road as tenants. ( 13 ) MR. Kar argued that it is an unnatural Will as the children and mother of the testator had been wholly disinherited. And what is the necessity to make a Will at the young age of forty-one, particularly when the testator was a Solicitor of this Court? The learned Advocate argued that there are suspicious circumstances about custody, and execution of the Will and coupeld with the discrepancies in the evidences should be sufficient to hold that the Will is not a genuine and reliable document. ( 14 ) MR. The learned Advocate argued that there are suspicious circumstances about custody, and execution of the Will and coupeld with the discrepancies in the evidences should be sufficient to hold that the Will is not a genuine and reliable document. ( 14 ) MR. Asim Banerjee learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that reconstructing events about fifty (50) years after have the unavoidable hazard of making mistakes about unimportant aspects or of juxtaposition of facts and of occurring discrepancies here and there, which should rather go to show that the propounder and her attesting witnesses are not tutored or have not come with the sinister design to take out a false document as a genuine document. The propounder is the wife of the testator and it is perfectly natural for any human being to bequeath in favour of his wife who as the guardian of the children should hold and maintain the properties for the benefit of the children. True, the daughter from whose custody the Will is forthcoming has not deposed but by filling an affidavit she has categorically stated that she would not contest the case and that probate may be given to the petitioner. Mr. Banerjee submitted that when custody of the Will and its execution and attestation have been proved by cogent evidence and as it is also in evidence that the testator was of sound mental and physical disposistion when the Will was prepared, 2 there can be no reason to deny probate for a few minor discrepancies in the evidences of the witnesses. There is no suspicious circumstance relating to custody of the Will or execution and attestation of the document. It is not an unnatural Will as the bequeath has been made in favour of the wife out of natural love and affection. It is not a case of disinheriting the sons and daughter because they would naturally come after the death of the mother. Making provision for a widow after death is a very natural act. When the signatures in the Will have been identified and proved, not taking any step to examine and compare the signatures with specimen signatures of the testator by calling a hand writing expert should sap the very foundation of the objector's case. In this connection Mr. Banerjee placed his reliance on the following decisions : AIR 1971 SC 2236 (Smt. Sushila Devi v. Pandit Krishna Kr. In this connection Mr. Banerjee placed his reliance on the following decisions : AIR 1971 SC 2236 (Smt. Sushila Devi v. Pandit Krishna Kr. Missir) wherein it was held that bequeathing most of the property to the son and the husband of the predeceased daughter instead of his only living daughter who was comparatively affluent, would not invalidate the Will where genuineness of the signature and execution have been proved. In the instant case bequeath has been made to the wife when the children are minors and the execution and attestation are proved by reliable evidence. And accordingly there is no reason why the Will is to be declared invalid. ( 15 ) AIR 1982 SC 133 (Smt. Indu Bala Bose v. Mahindra Ch. Bose ). In this decision the Supreme Court laid down that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as regards the special requirement of attestation under S. 63 of the Succession Act. It was emphasised that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution, proof of testatmentary capacity and of signature of the testator as required by law, is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court and again where circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court, the Supreme Court held. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, custody of the Will and execution and attestation of the Will have been proved and if there are certain discrepancies which have no bearing on the execution and attestation, genuineness of the Will cannot be challenged. The propounder was not even aware of the existence of the Will till death of her husband. The Will was executed, in 1947 but in 1979 it was made over to the daughter for safe custody. There is nothing unnatural or suspicious circumstances relating to the creation of the Will. The bequeath is in favour of the wife which is very natural. It is not a question of disinheriting the children. Rather interest of the children is adequately safeguarded by the bequest in favour of the wife. There is nothing unnatural or suspicious circumstances relating to the creation of the Will. The bequeath is in favour of the wife which is very natural. It is not a question of disinheriting the children. Rather interest of the children is adequately safeguarded by the bequest in favour of the wife. ( 17 ) UPON considering the facts, circumstances and the materials on record, I have no doubt in my mind that the Will is a genuine document duly executed and attested and that the objection raised by the Caveator must fail and is accordingly rejected. ( 18 ) IT is, therefore, ordered that the application be allowed and on payment of ad valorem duty, if not already paid, probate be granted to the petitioner with a copy of the Will annexed. Application allowed.