Judgment P. K. Deb, J. 1. An application was made by the applicant Ranju Kumar ghosh under Sec.276 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 for grant of Letter of administration of the estate of late ashoke Kumar Ray on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the Testator Ashoke kumar Ray on 24-11-1992 about four days prior to his death on 28-11-1992. 2. Ashoke Kumar Ray was a confirmed bachelor and he was an employee of A. G. Bihar posted at Ranchi. During his life time he acquired some property by himself at Anantpur at Ranchi town and constructed houses thereon. He had also share in the ancestral property situated at village Beliatore in the district of Bankura in the State of West Bengal. Besides that he had also some amounts deposited in the form of Fixed Deposit and purchase of kisan Vikas Patra, details of which were given in the Schedule of the petition. By the Will, it has been alleged that the testator, Ashoke Kumar Ray considering his bad health as he was suffering from virulent type of cancer made arrangement for bequeathing his properties on his death. The beneficiaries as per the Will are smt. Keka Ghosh wife of the applicant, ranju Kumar Ghosh as she had been bequeathed all the lands and houses thereon situated at Anantpur. The share in the ancestral property had been bequeathed in favour of Madhup Ray son of M. G. Ray, who happened to be the younger cousin brother of the Testator and some money as per the Will had also been given to his own nephews Sudipto and Sumanto Mazumdar. By the Will, it has been alleged in the petition that the applicant Ranju Kumar ghosh had been appointed as an administrator and in that capacity he made an application under Sec.276 of the indian Succession Act for grant of Letter of administration. The near relatives of the testator, late Ashoke Kumar Ray had been made parties to the proceedings as per para-3 of the application. Out of those near relatives, objections have been filed only by Sumanto Mazumdar who admittedly happen to be the nephew of late ashoke Kumar Ray. Although, other relatives as mentioned in para-3 had not filed any objection but it appears that M. G. Ray and Vani Ray, brother and sister of late ashoke Kumar Ray had supported the objection filed by Sumanto Mazumdar. Although, other relatives as mentioned in para-3 had not filed any objection but it appears that M. G. Ray and Vani Ray, brother and sister of late ashoke Kumar Ray had supported the objection filed by Sumanto Mazumdar. 3. The case of Sumanto Mazumdar as per the written objection/caveat is that the will is unnatural one and had been obtained by undue influence and fraud and the Will does not express the free mind of the so-called Testator. It was allegedly executed in a very suspicious manner and suspicious circumstances just before four days of the death of so-called Testator. The testator was admittedly suffering from virulent kind of cancer of stomach. The entire stomach from below the chest unto large Intestine was completely affected. He was being given food through artificial tube. According to the Objector, atleast about 10 days before the death, the so-called Tbstator was in severe pain and his condition was very weak and was completely bed ridden and in semi coma state and for the last two months prior to his death he was not in his complete sense and was unable to understand anything or to have any feelings for anybody. According to the Objector, it was not possible in such state of mind and health for the Testator to execute any Will on 24-11-1992. It was further alleged that the Will was got to be signed at the instance and influence/ connivances with Mrs. Keka Ghosh on any date or dates prior to the alleged date in the so-called Will. Very many allegations have been brought against the wife of the applicant i. e. Mrs. Keka Ghosh to the effect that she was having unnatural relationship with bachelor Ashoke Kumar ray and taking advantage of his feeble health she got the Will executed and also get the lion share of the properties of Late ashoke Kumar Ray in her favour and only to give a sanctuous picture some properties which had no value at all had been shown to be bequeathed in the Will in favour of other near relatives. 4. Nowhere in the objection the handwriting or the signature of the Testator in the Will has been challenged. The only contention of the Objector was that the Will in question was not executed by the Testator on 24-11-1992 in the way as the story had been manufactured by the applicants side. 5. 4. Nowhere in the objection the handwriting or the signature of the Testator in the Will has been challenged. The only contention of the Objector was that the Will in question was not executed by the Testator on 24-11-1992 in the way as the story had been manufactured by the applicants side. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 10-11-1995 : (1) Whether the petition for probate under Sec.276 of the Indian succession Act is maintainable. (2) Whether the alleged Will is a genuine and valid one. (3) Whether the Will in question has been executed on being wholly influenced by others. (4) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to. Due to inadvertence, it appears that in Issue No.1 the word Probate has been used, although the prayer is for issuance of letters of Administration and such prayer has been rightly made as not Executor had been appointed by the alleged Will. 6. As the case was highly contested, both parties adduced a number of witnesses. For and on behalf of the plaintiff-applicants side as many as six witnesses have been examined including the applicant himself as P. W.1 Ranju Kumar ghosh, P. W.2 Kinker Chandra Dey, P. W.3 s. B. Bhattacharjee, P. W.4 Dr. VN. Tiwary, p. W.5 Mr. P. K. Sinha, a senior Advocate of this Bar are the attesting witnesses of the will. P. W 4, Dr. VN. Tiwari is also a physician of the Testator, Mr. A. K. Ray, p. W.6 is Mrs. Keka Ghosh wife of P. W.1, ranju Kumar Ghosh, who is the vital beneficiary in the Will in question. The attesting witnesses have supported the case of the plaintiff-applicant. . 7. For and on behalf of the defendant-Objector, five witnesses have been examined, out of them D. W.1, Vani Ray, d. W.2, M. G. Roy are the cousin brother and sister of late A. K. Ray and from the trend and proceedings in the case, it could be understood that D. W.2 M. G. Ray was practically contesting the case keeping himself behind the screen and not filing objection directly. D. W.3, Dr. D. W.3, Dr. Deepak choudhary and D. W.4, Dipankar Sen gupta are the doctors who had treated testator A. K. Ray in Calcutta in Life Line nursing Home when he was taken there for treatment and practically there in calcutta the Tbstator was confirmed to be suffering from virulent type of stomach cancer. An attempt was made to operate the Tbstator but Dr. Dipankar Sen Gupta after coming down from the Operation theatre stated ihat cancer had spread from Oosophegus upto the Intestine and whole lower portion of the body starting from the lower portion of the heart upto large Intestine had been infected and as such operation was not done and the doctor advised the attendants to take back the testator to his own place at Ranchi so that he can die peacefully at his own house as nothing could be done medically and he was to wait for death. These two witnesses i. e. D. W.3 and 4 have been examined on commission in Calcutta on the prayer being made from the side of the defendant-Objector. DW-5 is Sumanto mazumdar, who is the sole objector and defendant in the case and he has supported the defence case to the effect that the Will could not be executed because of the physical and mental condition of the testator, A. K. Ray on 24-11-1992. 8. Before coming into the details regarding the evidence, it must be mentioned here that huge documents have been Exhibited by both the sides and most of those documents relate to letters of ashoke Kumar Ray during his life time written to different persons and the medical prescriptions etc. 9. The admitted facts remained as follows: (1) That A. K. Ray was a confirmed bachelor and was Senior Accounts Officer of a. G. Bihar and died of cancer on 28-11-1992. (2) That A. K. Ray had house property at anantpur and other ancestral properties at beliatore In the district of Bankura in the State of West Bengal and some cash deposits which are mentioned in the schedule of the Will. (3) That in the month of December, 1991 the Testator A. K. Ray became ill and his ailment continued and then the applicant Ranju kumar Ghosh brought his family i. e. his wife keka Ghosh and children at Anantpur house of A. K. Ray. (3) That in the month of December, 1991 the Testator A. K. Ray became ill and his ailment continued and then the applicant Ranju kumar Ghosh brought his family i. e. his wife keka Ghosh and children at Anantpur house of A. K. Ray. (4) That Ranju Kumar Ghosh has got his house at Kanke road and that he was posted at different places in course of his service in the State Bank of India including ranchi itself. (5) That Keka Ghosh before her marriage was Keka Aich and she happened to be the daughter of cousin of late A. K. Ray (A. K. Rays mother and grand mother of Keka Aich were Sisters ). She was first introduced to A. K. Ray when she came up at Ranchi for giving ma Examination and then continued to stay at Ranchi white along her service in Womens college under Ranchi University At that time, although she used to reside in hostel but she used to visit frequently A. K. Ray at his anantpur house and after she joined In service also the said relationship continued. She was married to Ranju Kumar Ghosh and such marriage, was solemnised at Jamshedpur at her fathers place and after marriage also she continued her service at Ranchi Womens college, although her husband was posted at different places at different times. So her relationship with A. K. Ray continued. (6} That the Will was entirely written by the executor himself and was signed by him on different pages and at the foot of the Will and as such it is a holograph Will. (7) That the attesting witnesses had in unequivocal terms had admitted the execution of the Will by A. K. Ray on 24-11-1992 in the afternoon hours. (8) That Vani Ray and M. G. Ray alias omi Ray were present at the house at anantpur on 24-11-1992 and that Ranju kumar Ghosh and Keka Ghosh were also there on that date. (9) That Sudipto and Sumanto were the nephews of late A. K. Ray and on the death of their parents they were brought to Ranchi for prosecuting their studies and for further prosecution of studies they left Ranchi. They did not come to see the ailing A. K. Ray during his ailment period nor they had come at the time of last rites of A. K. Ray. (10) That Or. They did not come to see the ailing A. K. Ray during his ailment period nor they had come at the time of last rites of A. K. Ray. (10) That Or. V. N. Tiwary was an attending physician of A. K. Ray and as such he being an attesting witness can be said to be a natural phenomenon. 10. The disputed facts are : (i) The Testator was not in mental and physical condition to execute the Will on 24-11-1992 as he was in semi coma stage as per version of the Objectors and that his mind was not working and he was not in a position to understand as to what he was doing. (ii) The Will was never executed on 24-11 -1992 as the mental and physical condition of the Testator was in such a stage that he in no circumstances would be able to write such a systematic long Will as an experienced person in drafting and conveyance. (iii) The Testator was in very much affection to all his family members from the paternal side and they had visiting terms and from the letters it could be understood that he had constructed the house so that all family mem bers from his paternal side could reside together and in that circumstances it was not at all possible from the side of Testator to bequeath the house property at Ranchi in favour of Keka Ghosh who is practically no relation from his side (although remotely related) and even if the same has been executed, the same was done at the instance and coercion of Keka Ghosh and Ranju Kumar Ghosh and they had the scope to influence the feeble mind of a person who was at the terminating point due to sufferance from virulent type of cancer. (iv) The deprivation of the natural heirs of the deceased castes a very great doubt and suspicion regarding the execution of Will at the free mind of the Testator. 11. I have already mentioned about the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. Let me now decide the case Issue-wise. Findings with reasons issue No.1.- At the very outset, Mr. 11. I have already mentioned about the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. Let me now decide the case Issue-wise. Findings with reasons issue No.1.- At the very outset, Mr. A. Sahay, appearing for and on behalf of the Objector has raised the maintainability of this petition under Sec.276 of the indian Succession Act as Chapter IX Rule iii of the Patna High Court Rules have not been properly complied with. 12. It appears from the records that the valuation of the property bequeathed under Will had been valued from the side of the petitioner-plaintiff and such valuation was taken up as proper by the Court and no citations were issued to any of the revenue authorities for the purpose of proper valuation of the properties. It is true that there is violation of the Patna high Court Rules as the properties have not been properly evalued by the Court by the issuance of citations to the Revenue authorities as required under the Patna high Court Rules and also in normal course, but that has not been done in the case. The valuation which has been put by the applicant-petitioner has been accepted by the Court without giving any reason whatsoever. The same can be found from the orders passed by a Single Judge of this court vide order dated 30-7-1993 and in compliance of that order the applicant-plaintiff had deposited Rs.19.000/-towards Court fees. The market value of the property is required to be evalued by the Court for the purpose of valuation of court fee on which the Probate or letters , of Administration are being written and issued after the case is disposed of. It is a matter between the Court and the party but when the Court has once been satisfied and when no objection has been raised from the side of the Objector at the very beginning or in the objection filed. Such sort of objection in this nature cannot be entertained at a belated stage. 13. Mr. It is a matter between the Court and the party but when the Court has once been satisfied and when no objection has been raised from the side of the Objector at the very beginning or in the objection filed. Such sort of objection in this nature cannot be entertained at a belated stage. 13. Mr. N. K. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the applicant-plaintiff submitted that even if it is taken to be granted that the applicant had not put proper market price of immovable properties mentioned in the Schedule then also when the maximum Court fee of Rs.19,000/- had been paid which is payable under the then Bihar court Fees Act then putting of lower value by the applicant has got no avail and this sort of objection cannot at a belated stage hold the petition to be non-maintainable. 14. Thus, from the discussions, I find that such objection has been raised only at the time of argument and not an iota of such plea had been taken in the objection being filed nor any question had been put to either Ranju Kumar Ghosh or Keka ghosh during the course of their examination in Court. Moreover, maximum court fee had already been paid by the applicant-plaintiff and hence the objection raised regarding maintainability has got no much bearing. 15. It has again been submitted by mr. Sahay that while swearing affidavit regarding the proper valuation of the property, the applicant had not put proper wordings at the time of swearing. These are only technical objection and cannot render the Probate petition under Sec.276 of the Indian Succession act non-maintainable. Hence, this issue is decided in the affirmative and in favour of the applicant-plaintiff. Issue Nos.2 and 3. 16. These issues are taken up together as they are inter related and vital issues for the purpose of decision of the case itself. From the admitted facts and disputed points as mentioned earlier, it could be found that the Will in question which has been marked as Ext.5 in the case had never been denied to be in the hands of] the Testator A. K. Ray. The only question in the objection is with regard to the date of the execution of the Will by the testator. The only question in the objection is with regard to the date of the execution of the Will by the testator. As per the plaintiff-applicant the will was executed on 24-11-1992 four days prior to his death while according to the defendant-objector the Will could never be executed on 24-11-1992 because of the health condition of the Testator and even if it was so executed it must have been influenced by the applicant Ranju Kumar ghosh who happens to be the most interested person as his wife Keka Ghosh had been bequeathed of the Ranchi Property by the Will. All the attesting witnesses who have been examined in the case had supported the version of the applicant. Out of these attesting witnesses vital witnesses are mr. P. K. Sinha, a senior Advocate of this bar and Dr. V. N. Tiwary, an attending physician of the Testator. 17. It is the argument of Mr. A. Sahay, for and on behalf of the Objector that the Will in question, if read in between the lines, it could be well inferred that such Will cannot be written by a lay man who is not connected with the legal profession because the wordings as per his submission had not been put in such a measured and legal way which creates a doubt as to the writing of the document by the Testator himself that too about four days prior to his death when he was suffering from virulent type of cancer and on the next date itself he was being transfused of blood. 18. It appears from the evidence of keka Ghosh that the Testator A. K. Ray had consulted Mr. P. K. Sinha, Senior advocate of the Bar regarding the Will prior to some days but these facts have not been stated by Mr. P. K. Sinha in his evidence. Non-disclosure of that fact by Mr. P. K. Sinha does not take away the evidence of keka Ghosh to the effect that A. K. Ray had consulted Mr. P. K. Sinha regarding execution of the Will prior to the date of execution or writing of the Will. In cross-examination also, nothing has been put to Mr. P. K. Sinha about such consultation. I do not find that this is a doubtful circumstance going against the execution of the Will. P. K. Sinha regarding execution of the Will prior to the date of execution or writing of the Will. In cross-examination also, nothing has been put to Mr. P. K. Sinha about such consultation. I do not find that this is a doubtful circumstance going against the execution of the Will. From the various letters written by A. K. Ray to his relatives which had been marked Exhibits in the case revealed that the Testator AK. Ray was a well educated man and having a mind of principle as it appears that he aid not spare his own nephews when they were going stray while residing with him after the death of their parents. It is further brought that the Will was in a legal language and cannot be said to be written by a lay man of his own without having any legal advise. But about the legal advise there is already the evidence of Mrs. Keka Ghosh. So that doubt has been explained from the side of the applicant i. e. the Propounder. In the will the signature of A. K. Ray is there on all the pages. In some pages he had signed in abbreviated form and in page No.3 he had signed his full name. The date of the will had not only been written numerically but by wordings also the same had been written. The last signature in the page No.3 shows that it was signed with some shievering hands while the same is not there on the other pages. But, this cannot be looked with suspicion as the Will as a whole is a holograph one i. e. the same had been written in the hands of the Testator himself which had not been denied. 19. A holograph will is always in higher esteem than that of other Wills which are being written and typed by other persons and as such the validity and genuinity of the same stands on better footing than other types of Will. This has also been held by the Apex Court as reported in 1996 (9) SCC 324 , Jouce primrose Prestor V/s. Vera Mario Vas. Moreover, it appears that by the Will the natural inheritors or successors apparent had not been totally deprived of. The objector had also been provided with some monetary benefit as per para-3 of the Will itself. This has also been held by the Apex Court as reported in 1996 (9) SCC 324 , Jouce primrose Prestor V/s. Vera Mario Vas. Moreover, it appears that by the Will the natural inheritors or successors apparent had not been totally deprived of. The objector had also been provided with some monetary benefit as per para-3 of the Will itself. That the testator was not in good terms with the Objector and his brother i. e. Sudipto and Sumanto Mazumdar can be found from the letters being written by a. K. Ray to his different relatives. 20. Jyothika Mazumdar was the own sister of A. K. Ray. She was married and was residing at Patna. She, as it appears from the materials on record suffering from mental disease and other disease and from that very time there was some sort of strained relationship between the brothers-in-law i. e. the Testator A. K. Ray and husband of Jyothika Mazumdar. Then both Jyothika Mazumdar and her husband died leaving behind Sudipto and Sumanto. They were residing at Patna and for better education and proper guardianship they were brought to Ranchi but the elder brother Sudipto Mazumdar had already gone stray, according to the Testator and practically he was ousted from the house. Sumanto Mazumdar completed his I. Sc. from Xt. Xavier College at Ranch! and then went to Calcutta for prosecuting his studies in the medical stream and at the time of his evidence, he had already become a full-fledged doctor. It further appears that Mr. Omi Ray who was present on the date of the alleged execution of the will at Ranchi at Anantpur house had given a note to Mr. A. K. Ray in writing which has been marked as Ext.2/5 suggesting to incorporate some properties in favour of the nephews of the Testator and it appears that such suggestions given by mr. M. G. Ray alias Omi Ray had almost in verbatim have been incorporated in the will itself by the Testator A. K. Ray. These rather go to show that the Will was ex-ecuted on 24-11-1992 in the same sitting and teh contents of the Will were known to both Miss Vani Ray and M. G. Ray who are mainly contesting this testamentary case. These rather go to show that the Will was ex-ecuted on 24-11-1992 in the same sitting and teh contents of the Will were known to both Miss Vani Ray and M. G. Ray who are mainly contesting this testamentary case. That the Will was in their knowledge also appears from the fact that a copy of the Will was taken by them for production in the Bankura court where litigation was pending and on the basis of that Will dibyaduti Ray alias Madhup Ray son of m. G. Ray had been substituted in place of the Testator A. K. Ray. So till the execution of the Will and some days after the things were going in normal way but perhaps for some reason or other M. G. Ray and Vani ray became daggers drawn with Keka ghosh and then they had set up Sumanto to file objection in the case, as it appears that Sumanto and Sudipto were not concerned about their maternal uncle when the Testator was ailing for about a year they did not come to see him, although they were benefitted from him. Even after the death of A. K. Ray also they did not come to Ranchi for doing last rites. M. G. Ray did not file objection as his son madhup Ray alias Dibyaduti Ray was benefitted by the Will as share in the ancestral property of the Testator A. K. Ray had been bequeathed in favour of M. G. Rays son as they are having interest at bankura. Definitely they are satisfied what have been given to Mr. Dibyaduti Ray. The bequeathedly by this will is not a total deprivation of the heirs apparent but definitely a lion share had been given to mrs. Keka Ghosh who is not directly related or were amongst heirs apparent but keka Ghosh was all alongwith A. k. Ray during his last days and he was also dependent on her and Vani Ray and M. G. Ray were also dependent on Keka Ghosh regarding the supervision of A. K. Ray who was a confirmed Bachelor. This would reveal from the various correspondences being made which have been Exhibited in the case. 21. When total deprivation is not there and circumstances are only questioned regarding non-execution of the Will on 24-11-1992, there remains no much doubtful circumstances regarding the genuinity of the Will. 22. This would reveal from the various correspondences being made which have been Exhibited in the case. 21. When total deprivation is not there and circumstances are only questioned regarding non-execution of the Will on 24-11-1992, there remains no much doubtful circumstances regarding the genuinity of the Will. 22. It has been argued strenuously by mr. Sahay, appearing for and on behalf of the Objector-defendant that the health condition of the Testator was such that he was not in a position to make the Will on the date as alleged. Plea of the defendant was that the Testator was in semi coma stage about 15 days prior to his death and he was not in a position to move from his bed. But this contention has been nullified by the attending physician Dr. V. N. Tiwary and also from the fact that on the date of the death also the Testator had gone to bath room being accompanied and escorted by another and there he fell down and then breathed his last so the Testator was not in a semi coma stage as alleged. Blood transfusion of A. K. Ray was done on 25-11-1992 and afterwards but according to Mr. Sahay on previous dates also there was blood transfusion but there is no specific evidence to that effect. Only on a certificate issued on 25-11-1992 it could be found that there were previous blood transfusion also. That previous blood transfusion as per Mr. N. K. Prasad, Advocate related to at the time of operation at Calcutta. There is every possibility of such inference when no positive evidence is there that blood transfusion was there on 24-11-1992 also. 23. It cannot be said that the Testator was not in a position to write the Will as admittedly the writing of the Will was there by the Testator himself and the attending physician opined that he was in a mentally and physically fit position to write the Will. 24. Mr. Sahay has referred to the various Medical Jurisprudence to show that the condition of the Testator was such that it must have resulted in anaemic hypoxia as the haemoglobin of the Testator had gone down to such a low extent. But such medical Jurisprudence had never been put to the mouth of either Dr. V. N. Tiwary or to the two doctors of the Calcutta, when they were examined. But such medical Jurisprudence had never been put to the mouth of either Dr. V. N. Tiwary or to the two doctors of the Calcutta, when they were examined. Thus only by inference from the Medical Jurisprudence without any factual aspect regarding the testators physical condition, these cannot be relied to infer that the Testator was not in position to write the Will when there was positive evidence by all dis-interested witnesses regarding the writing of the Will and its execution on that date. 25. Another point has been raised from the side of Mr. Sahay that there was no reason why the near relatives namely vani Ray and M. G. Ray, although present on the date of execution of Will, had not been made attesting witnesses. Similar is the position relating to Mr. Ranju Kumar Ghosh and Keka Ghosh. They were also present at the time of execution of the Will in the house. It appears that the Testator had chosen his near and dear friends and the neighbours and a doctor to be the attesting witnesses in the will. Although, law requires only two attesting witnesses, here six attesting witnesses have been there and the witnesses have stated that they were informed earlier by the Testator to be present and even they went to the extent that some of them were present for the whole time when the Will was being written by the Testator in his own hands. It has also been stated that he wrote the Will by sitting in slanting position in the bed itself as there was tube fitted to his belly. Such a paper can be written by a person in slanting position and even a normal man also shall writes in the bed in slanting position. There is no abnormality in it. 26. That the Will was being written on 24-11-1992 was known to M. G. Ray as he gave suggestion to the Testator and the same suggestion had been incorporated in the Will itself as stated earlier. So the genuinity of the Will as questionair have no much force as is revealed from the voluminous evidence adduced and the documents proved in the case. As I have stated earlier when there is no total deprivation of the heirs-apparent, then the degree of suspicion is loosened. So the genuinity of the Will as questionair have no much force as is revealed from the voluminous evidence adduced and the documents proved in the case. As I have stated earlier when there is no total deprivation of the heirs-apparent, then the degree of suspicion is loosened. Moreover, if the Will was executed in the knowledge and that the suggestions of heirs apparent or their near relatives then the suspicion alleged become more loosened. If we take the worst view that the vital part of the will was not written on 24-11-1992 and the same was written on some dates prior to it then also it remains that it was executed on 24-11-1992 as per evidence itself and in that case when it is a holograph will then no doubt can be created regarding the execution of the Will on 24-11-1992. Moreover, bequeathing of Ranchi property in favour of Keka Ghosh cannot be said to be unnatural. The near relatives of A. K. Ray were residing outside Ranchi. They occasionally visited him. His own nephews had ditched him but Mrs. Keka ghosh who happened to be his (distant)niece through cousin remained all along in his distress and therefore love and affection must have fallen on her. About unnatural relation of Mrs. Keka Ghosh and the Testator A. K. Ray seems to be a total myth and being raised by the Objector for the purpose of getting undue benefit and to create a false doubt in the mind of the court. There is not an iota of evidence to that effect. Mrs. Keka Ghosh was happily married woman having two children and a young husband would never tolerate any illegal relationship of his young wife with an old man only for the purpose of getting some property, when it appears that the applicant-Ranju Kumar Ghosh is an affluent person having property at Ranchi itself and also having a good job. Mrs. Keka ghosh herself also is a lecturer at Ranchi womens College. There cannot be any reason as to why they should influence a. K. Ray. If influence would have been there then the whole property could have been bequeathed in favour of Keka Ghosh, but that has not been done rather it appears that the Testator was conscious about his position and the property and then made a Will giving a lion share to mrs. If influence would have been there then the whole property could have been bequeathed in favour of Keka Ghosh, but that has not been done rather it appears that the Testator was conscious about his position and the property and then made a Will giving a lion share to mrs. Keka Ghosh out of love and affection. As the relationship of the nephews were not cordial with the Testator and for that reason he was apprehensive that his money might not be taken by his nephews and as such alternative arrangement had also been made by the Testator in the Will itself. This shows the charity of understanding in the mind of the Testator at the time of writing the Will. 27. From all these facts and circumstances, I hold and find that there is no much suspicious circumstances in the case and even if some suspicious circumstances are there regarding the ailment of the deceased Testator, that have been well-explained by the propounder. Hence, these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff-applicant and against the defendant-objector. 28. Thus, from the discussions above, this testatmentary case is hereby allowed and Letters of Administration may be issued, as prayed for, if the Court fees have already been paid and a copy of the Will may be attached to the Letters of Ad ministration. Citations relied on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant 1996 (9) SCC 324 , Jouce Primrose prestor V/s. Vera Maria Vas, 1995 Supreme court 1684, R. N. Mukherjee V/s. Panchanan banerjee, citations relied on behalf of the defendant/objector 1959 SC 443, H. Venkatachala lyengar v. B. N. Thimmajemma and others, 1964 SC 529, Shashi Kr. Banerjee V/s. Subodh Kr. Banerjee, 1965 SC 354, Ramchandra rambux V/s. Chamoa Bai and ors.1977 SC 74, Smt. Jaswant Kaur V/s. Smt. Amrit Kaur, 1985 Orissa 232, Sarada charan Mishra V/s. Smt. Prafulla 1990 SC 3% Kalyan Singh V/s. Smt. Choti, 1992 (2) SCC 507 , Smt. Guro V/s. Atma Singh and Ors. . T. C. Allowed.