Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 1977 and the decree dated 22nd April, 1977 passed in Title Suit no.4/71 by Sri Radhey Shyam Prasad, 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, through which the suit in question was decreed and it was ordered that the plaintiff is entitled for grant of probate in respect of the will dated 12-9-1962 executed by Jamni Kumar Chakravarty. 2. The fact in short giving rise to this appeal is that the respondent Smt. Bhanumati Roy instituted a probate case under Sec.276 of the Indian succession Act alleging therein that jamini Kumar Chakravarty was all along living in muhalla Mosakchak P. S. Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur and he died on 10-12-1969 at his residence leaving behind his only son Jitendra kumar Chakravarty and two relations, namely, Fakir Chand Bhattacharya and lalmohan Bhattacharya, who were living in Naihati, District 24 parganas, west Bengal. The aforesaid Jamini kumar Chakravarty executed his last will on 12-9-1962. in respect of his residential house with land thereunder measuring 2 kathas and 17 dhurs bearing holding Nos.26, 27 and 37 Satis sarkar Lane, ward No.3, Circle No.5 of Bhagalpur Municipality more fully described in the schedule of the plaint. The deceased Jamini Kumar Chakravarty was well known to the plaintiff and she was serving him during his will-ness and so the will in question was executed and the plaintiff was the executor according to the tenor of the will and is the universal legatee named in the will and the deceased devised by the will in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule and thus prayed for grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The appellants, who were objectors in the court below and contested the probate proceeding, filed joint petition of objection claiming therein that the appellants-objectors are the sisters sons of the said Jamini Kumar Chakravarty, who admittedly died on 10-12-1969 and these objectors are the only legal heirs to inherit the properties left by him. The alleged will is a forged and fabricated documen to grab the valuable properties belonging to the objectors worth Rs.50,000/-. The alleged will is a forged and fabricated documen to grab the valuable properties belonging to the objectors worth Rs.50,000/-. It was also submitted that actually the husband of the plaintiff- applicant was the tenant in the ground floor of a portion of the holding No.26 and it is totally false to say that Jamini Kumar Chakravarty ever executed any will in favour of the plaintiff- applicant, that too, in a sound state of mind, health and body and his conscious of the recital of the will and in fact Jamini Kumar Chakravarty on the relevant date was not in Bhagalpur rather at Naihati at the place where these objectors reside and he was undergoing treatment being aged man and having some mental disturbances. 4. It is also the case of these appellants-objectors that Jamini Kumar chakravarty died at Bhagalpur on 10-12-1969 living alone in a most suspicious circumstance and the plaintiff-applicants husband was a tenant of the portion of holding No.26 and he forcibly wanted to occupy the house for that a criminal case was also instituted and further the objectors also got their names mutated in Municipal register in respect of the said holding and in possession of the same and realising rent from the other tenants. Furthermore, the attesting witnesses to the alleged will are not men of the same locality and they are friends of Satyahari Roy, husband of the plaintiff and there was no occasion for the testator to execute the will, that too, in favour of the applicant-plaintiff. Accordingly, it was submitted that the prayer for grant of probate may be rejected. 5. As the probate case was contested by the objectors, so the Probate case No.9/70 was converted into Title suit No.4/77 and the court below framed as many as five issues. Out of them, Issue Nos.2 and 4 were the important issues and these issues and other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and a finding was recorded that the will in question in a genuine one executed by the testator Jamini Kumar Chakravarty and as such ordered for grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Out of them, Issue Nos.2 and 4 were the important issues and these issues and other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and a finding was recorded that the will in question in a genuine one executed by the testator Jamini Kumar Chakravarty and as such ordered for grant of probate in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the court below, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the court below erred in recording a finding that the will in question was genuine and had been voluntarily executed by the testator rather at the relevant time the testator was of unsound mind and was not keeping good health and as such the will in question was not genuine and voluntary. 6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the testator, namely, Jamini Kumar chakravarty executed the will dated 12-9-1962 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent as alleged and the will being genuine, the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for decree of probate. 7. Admittedly/the plaintiff-respondent instituted probate case which was subsequently converted into Title suit for grant of probate in respect of a will dated 12-9-1962 executed by Jamini kumar Chakravarty in respect of his house and lands situated on Holding nos.26, 27 and 37 of Ward No.3 in bhagalpur Municipality and it is now admitted case of the parties that the testator was living in Bhagalpur in the suit premises after his retirement from the Postal Department and admittedly he died on 10-12-1969 and his wife neharbala Chakravarty predeceased him and she died in November, 1961 at bhagalpur and the testator had a son jitendra Kumar Chakravarty and now it is an admitted case of both the parties and also clear from the evidence on the record that Jitendra Kumar Chakravarty was mentally insane and of unsound mind from before arid he is untraceable at least after the death of his father and his whereabout is not known and it may be a case of virtual civil death: During the course of argument it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Holding Nos.26, 27 and 37 stood recorded in the name of the wife of the testator and thus testator had no power to execute the will. Of course in the Municipal Register the suit properties were recorded in the name of the wife of the testator but it is the case of the plaintiff that it belongs to testator and virtually his wife was the name-lender. Similarly, this very fact has not been challenged by the objectors-appellants in the court below in the objection petition. Moreover, the objector- appellant, who had figured as d. W.11 in the court below himself admitted that the suit properties belong to his maternal uncle. So, this fact is now more or less settled that Holding nos.26, 27 and 37 actually belong to testator Jamini Kumar Chakravarty. Furthermore, in a case of probate, learned counsel for both the parties rightly conceded that the question of title is more or less academic and the probate court is not expected to enquire into the title of the properties and this view also finds support from the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in A. I. R.1985 Calcutta 349 (Smt. Chinmoyee Saha V/s. Debendra Lal saha and ors ). 8. Now the only question for consideration before me is if the testator jamini Kumar Chakravarty executed a genuine and valid will on 12-9-1962, i. e. Ext.-7. To prove the execution of the will, on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, several witnesses were examined. Out of them, P. W.7 Sudhir Chandra chakravarty, who is a senior advocate of Bhagalpur Bar, was examined on commission and according to this witness, on the instruction of Jamini kumar Chakravarty, he drafted a will (Ext.-7) at his residence And this witness has also stated that he drafted the entire will by also mentioning the names and addresses and date of the witnesses and the testator, meaning thereby, the entire will was drafted and only the execution portion was to be filled up by the testator and the witnesses. No doubt, the will was not executed and attested in his presence but this witness has clearly stated that the testator expressed his desire for execution of the will and bequeathing the properites belonging to him and so a senior advocate drafted the will on 11-9-1962 and he also stated that at the time of drafting the testator was quite normal. From the cross-examination of this witness, who is a practising advocate, nothing has come to show that he is somehow or the other interested and the evidence of this witness gives an indication that the will was drafted by him on the instruction of the testator and at that time the testator was of normal health and normal mind, meaning thereby, he had the testamentary capacity. 9. The other important witness on the point of execution of the will are p. W.2 Madan Mohan Saha and P. W.3 bishnu Sah. From the evidence of these two witnesses, it can be said that on 12-9-1962 the testator came to the goldsmith shop of P. W.2 and asked him to come to his residence along with other witness and at that time P. W.3 was also present in the shop and both of them had gone to the residence of the testator on 12-9-1962 and they had further stated that Jamini Kumar Chakravarty expressed his desire to bequeath his property and to execute a will in favour of the propounder for the services rendered by her and the will paper, i. e. Ext.-7 was shown to them and then Jamini Kumar Chakravarty put his signature and after that they too also put their signature. Their evidence find support from the will itself because ext.-2 and 2-B are the signatures of these two witnesses respectively on the will. These witnesses had also proved the signature of the testator Jamini kumar Chakravarty which has been marked as Ext.2-A. , with regard to proof of a will it is now more or less well settled that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed under Sec.63 of the indian Succession Act, i. e. the documents require attestation by two witnesses and the will is required to be proved by attesting witnesses. In the instant case these two attesting witnesses clearly proved that the testator expressed his desire for executing the will in favour of the propounder for the services rendered by her and the testator put his signature. 10. In the instant case these two attesting witnesses clearly proved that the testator expressed his desire for executing the will in favour of the propounder for the services rendered by her and the testator put his signature. 10. The other important witness on this point is P. W.6 Satyahari Roy, the husband of the propounder and this witness had given the details of the entire happenings and had stated that he was living in that very Satish Sarkar lane from the year 1950-51 and earlier he was tenant of the testator and testators wife Neharbala Chakravarty was keeping indifferent health and suffering from High Blood Pressure leading to her blindness and his wife rendered services to her during her lifetime and during her agonies and after her death, she was also rendering service to the testator and out of love and affection the testator executed the will. The evidence of this witness also finds corroboration from the Will itself (Ext.-7) as the testator himself mentioned in the Will which was drafted by an Advocate, i. e. Ext-7 showing therein that the propounder rendered useful services not only to him but also to his ailing wife and that may be the motivation for execution of the Will and diversion of natural succession. 11. So far execution of the Will by jamini Kumar Chakravarty is concerned, the plaintiffs case also further finds support from the evidence of P. W.5 Capt. K. P. Bose. From the evidence of this witness it can be said that he is a neighbour of the testator and a responsible man being in military service and retired from the Military Service sometime in the year 1968. This witness has stated that Jamini Kumar Chakravarty granted two rent receipts, i. e. Ext.-5 and 5/a to his tenant. It was submitted that Jamini Babu was care-taker on behalf of Capt. K. P. Bose and he realised the rent from the tenants and Ext.-5 and 5/a are counterfiles written by him. Surprisingly, there is no cross-examination at all of this witness to show that ext.-5 and 5/a are not genuine and granted by Jamini Kumar Chakravarty, so now it is an admitted position that ext.-5 and 5/a are in the pen of Jamini kumar Chakravarty, the testator of the will. 12. Surprisingly, there is no cross-examination at all of this witness to show that ext.-5 and 5/a are not genuine and granted by Jamini Kumar Chakravarty, so now it is an admitted position that ext.-5 and 5/a are in the pen of Jamini kumar Chakravarty, the testator of the will. 12. It appears that the signature of the testator on the Will i. e. Ext.-7, which is marked as Ext.-2/a and similarly two receipts, i. e. Ext.-5 and 5/a admittedly granted by the testator were sent for comparison by the handwriting expert. Ext.-4 is the photograph of signature of Jamini Babu on the Will whereas Ext-4 series are the enlarged copy of the receipt, which are admitted documents of Jamini Babu and from the evidence of P. W.1 Krishna Kant prasad, who is the Finger-print and hand-writing expert, it is clear that he examined all these writings and submitted his report, i. e. Ext.-1. From the evidence of this witness and Ext.-1 it can be said that the signature on the will tallies with the admitted writing which are Ext.-5 and 5/a So, from the evidence of the Hand-writing Expert coupled with some admitted documents, this fact is well proved that the will, ie. Ext.-7 contains the signature of Jamini Kumar Chakravarty. 13. As the execution of the Will is well proved, now the only question for consideration is if at all the Will in question was executed voluntarily and the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution. Furthermore, learned counsel fpr the appellants also submitted that the testator had admittedly a son, who was insane, in that view of the matter, it is a natural conduct of a father to make adequate provision for his son and in any view of the matter, the Will executed by an old man in a circumstance and position when his son was of unsound mind, wife pre-deceased him and above all living lonely retired life creates an impression that the testator was not of sound mind and he had no testamentary capacity and the Will also suffers from surrounding suspicion for the reason that the line of succession was diverted in such a way that a complete stranger to the family would be absolute owner. There is no two opinions that before a decree of probate can be granted, the Court must be satisfied by the cogent evidence not only with regard to the execution of the Will but also the court has to go further deep that the execution was valid and the testator had a testamentary capacity and the Will which prescribes a line of succession to the heritage of the testator does not suffer from any circumstance which gives an inclination that the testator was somehow or the other prevailed upon. 14. No doubt, the Will itself is a document by its execution and it can be said that the whole idea behind the execution is to disturb the normal line of succession and only for the reason that natural heirs would be debarred it may not lead to any suspicion and on this point reliance was placed by the counsel for the respondent on an authority of the Supreme Court reported in a. I. R.1995 S. C.1684 (Rabindra Nath mukherjee and another V/s. Panchanan banerjee ). On the other hand, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on a case of the Supreme Court reported in B. B. C. J.1992 132 (S. C.) (Smt. Guro V/s. Sri Atma Singh and others) and that of another authority of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R.1965 S. C.354 (Ramchandra Rambux V/s. Champabai and others ). It was contended on behalf of the appellants that if the Will suffers from suspicion and surrounding circumstances, it indicates that the Will had not been executed properly and care was not taken for the heirs. Then it may be presumed that the Will in question is not genuine and in such a case probate cannot be granted. 15. From these authorities it can be said that only on the ground that natural heirs were debarred in some cases, the Will ilself will not be doubtful and if there is suspicion and circumstances, then the entire onus lies upon the propounder to satisfy the court and to remove the doubt and misunderstanding. 15. From these authorities it can be said that only on the ground that natural heirs were debarred in some cases, the Will ilself will not be doubtful and if there is suspicion and circumstances, then the entire onus lies upon the propounder to satisfy the court and to remove the doubt and misunderstanding. In the instant case, so far the execution of the Will is well proved and one of the important argument raised by the appellants that the testator had not taken care of his only lunatic son has no leg to stand in view of the fact that in the Will itself, a provision has been made that the propounder should look after the maintain the son of the testator. In the peculiar circumstances and mere for the reason that admittedly the testators son was a lunatic, it is not expected from the testator to bequeath any property in his favour directly. 16. So far the other allegation that the testator also had no testamentary capacity, who was an old man and virtually he was not mentally sound due to death of his wife and insanity of his only son. On this point, on behalf of the objectors appellants, several witnesses were examined. D. W.1 Purnendu narain, D. W.2 Abhai Chakravarty, d. W.-3 Barun Kumar Sarkar, D. W.4 sheo Pujan Singh, D. W.5 Fakirchand banerjee, D. W.6 Shambhu Narain singh, D. W.7 Raj Narain Pandey and d. W.8 Shital Pd. Roy were examined. All these witnesses had simply claimed that at the time of death of the testator due to old age the testator was not mentally fit but from the cross-examination of these witnesses it can be said that they had admitted that the testator was leading a normal life and even D. W.8 Shital Prasad Roy, who is also a practising advocate supported the case of the objector on the point of unsound mind of the testator had admitted that he was living in Bhagalpur from the year 1968 and the testator died in the year 1969 and he had no ocasion to talk to testator. So, only vague evidence was adduced to show that the testator was not mentally fit at the time of execution of the Will. 17. So, only vague evidence was adduced to show that the testator was not mentally fit at the time of execution of the Will. 17. Even the evidence of D. W.11 fakir Chand Bhattacharya, who is the nephew being the sisters son, who had claimed that he had taken the testator to Naihati for treatment regarding his mental trouble but he has stated that the testator was treated by a homoeopathy doctor and not a single prescription of the doctor was produced in this regard. Moreover, d. W.11, who is claiming the properties of the testator as heir, himself admitted in his cross-examination that only on two occasions he came to Bhagalpur i. e. in the year 1961 and 1962 and at present the propounder and her husband are in possession of the suit Holdings as they forcibly occupied the same and also paying municipal rent. So, on careful consideration of the entire evidence on the record, oral, and documentary, this fact is well proved that the testator executed the Will in respect of the properties described in the schedule of the plaint in favour of bhanumati Roy as she rendered services to the wife of the testator and also to the testator was also made in the will and it appears from the evidence on the record that his two nephews, who are objectors here are living in naihati in West Bengal and they were not looking after the old man or his wife. Thus, the testator reposed faith on the propounder being his tenant and looking after him from before. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that even if it is proved that the Will had been executed by the testator, still from the recital of the Will it can be said that the Will is defective and the testator had not appointed any executor and so in view of the provisions of Sec.232-A of the indian Succession Act the plaintiff-respondent will only be entitled for grant of letters of Administration and not probate. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that in view of the provisions of section 222 (2) of the Indian Succession Act, it can be said that sub-clause (2) clearly prescribes that the appointment of executor may be expressed or by necessary implication, and in the instant case the appointment of executor may be inferred from the necessary implication because in the second para of the Will it has been clearly mentioned that the testator hereby devise the property and propounder will be the absolute owner and will enjoy the property and also a direction was given regarding the way of the properties to be used by making provision for the maintenance of the son of the testator and thus para-2 of the Will virtually appointed propounder to be the executor. 19. It appears from para-2 of the will, i. e. Ext.-7 that the plaintiff-respondent was virtually made executor and necessary direction was also given in para-2 of the Will. No doubt, ordinary method of appointing any executor is that the testator nominates a person in the body of the Will by the expressed designation of the executor but even though the testator may fail to nominate a person in express term to be his executor, yet if upon reasonable construction of the Will it appears that a particular person has been appointed to perform the initial duties of the executor, then it may be deemed that the executor had been appointed, in view of the provisions of Sec.222 of the Indian Succession Act also. Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of andhra Pradesh High Court reported in A. I. R.1976 A. P.306 -Jonnala veerareddy V/s. Marredy Seethamma. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that though specifically the executor has not been appointed, but from the tenor of the Will itself it can be said that the propounder was appointed as executor and in that view of the matter there is no legal impediment for grant of probate. 20. Lastly it was also argued on behalf of the appellants that if there is any discrepancy in the Will or any other documents, then subsequent portion of the Will will prevail. 20. Lastly it was also argued on behalf of the appellants that if there is any discrepancy in the Will or any other documents, then subsequent portion of the Will will prevail. In the instant case it has been mentioned in the Will itself in the second paragraph and a direction was also given by the testator that from the properties of the testator his son is to be maintained during his lifetime and in fact, according to the instruction received by him, the plaintiff-respondent disposed of the properties of the will in question and so the entire purpose of the Will had been defeated. In this regard this much can only be said that practically there is no evidence on the record to show that the plaintiff-respondent disposed of the properties in question. Thus, this matter can be agitated subsequently if at all there is any cause of action in this regard. 21. So, after careful consideration of the entire evidence on the record, this much can be said that the plaintiff-respondent has been able to prove that jamini Kumar Chakravarty executed a valid will in her favour on 12-9-1962 and as such she is entitled for grant of probate as ordered by the court below. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and as such it is dismissed with cost. Pleader Fee-Rs.150/- only. Appeal Dismissed.