Gorachand De, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : Smt. Hasi Roy filed this application on 16th August 1996 praying for grant of probate in the last Will and Testament dated 7th March 1995 executed by her husband Ajit Kumar Roy who died on 4th April 1996 leaving behind the petitioner Hasi Roy (wife), Asit Kumar Roy, Arit Kumar Roy and Amitava Roy (sons) and Pradipta Mitra (the married daughter ). ( 2 ) SMT. Pradipta Mitra filed a Caveat and obtained leave of the Court to file an affidavit in support of her Caveat by 17th January 1997. Pursuant to that order, special citations were served on her on 16th October, 1996. Pradipta Mitra affirmed an affidavit in support of the said Caveat on 15th January 1997 and it was filed on 20th January 1997. After hearing the learned counsels of both sides, an order was passed on 14th February 1997 by Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) directing that the matter be sent down as a contentious clause making Hasi Roy as the plaintiff, Smt. Pradipta Mitra as the defendant and treating the original petition for probate filed on 17th August 1996 as the plaint and the affidavit in support of the caveat filed on 20th January 1997 as the written statement filed by Pradipta Mitra. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the order passed on 19th February 1997, parties discovered documents and thereafter, four volumes of Judge's Brief of documents were filed by the learned advocate on record for the plaintiff. ( 4 ) THE plaint case in brief is that Ajit Kumar Roy, a resident and having properties within the jurisdiction of this Court died on 4th April 1996 leaving behind his last Will and testament in vernacular dated 7th March 1995 whereby he appointed his wife Hasi Roy as the sole executrix. Accordingly, she being the sole executrix filed the application for probate of the said Will. The three sons of the deceased namely Asit Kumar Roy, Arit Kumar Roy and Amitava Roy gave their consent to the grant of probate to their mother, Hasi Roy. Accordingly, she being the sole executrix filed the application for probate of the said Will. The three sons of the deceased namely Asit Kumar Roy, Arit Kumar Roy and Amitava Roy gave their consent to the grant of probate to their mother, Hasi Roy. ( 5 ) THE defence of Pradipta Mitra is that her father Ajit Kumar Roy got married to his first wife Bharati Roy in the year 1956, that said Bharati Roy belonged to a very reputed and rich family in the town of Howrah and that she, during her wedding received a good number of jewellery worth about Rs. 5,00,000/- along with other moveables. Two sons namely Asit Roy and Arit Roy and one daughter Smt. Pradipta Mitra were born in the said wedlock. The peaceful relationship with Ajit Roy and Bharati Roy continued for about ten years. But unfortunately during the last part of the life of Bharati Roy, the conjugal relationship between the husband and wife became bitter owing to the involvement of Ajit Kumar Roy with a girl being the sister of his car driver Shri Basudev Belel who used to reside in the staff quarter of premises No. 6, Barrackpore Trunk Road Calcutta 700 002 which was the previous residence of Ajit Kumar Roy. The said sister of the car driver namely, Smt, Hasi Roy (the present petitioner) used to visit her brother in the said staff quarter and thus, she developed an illicit and immoral relationship with late Ajit Kumar Roy. Since Bharati Roy objected to such affair, the conjugal relationship between her and Ajit Kumar Roy became strained. Before the last breach between the couple, Bharati Roy was taken to Puri by her husband in the year 1969 under the plea of Jagannath Darshan and surprisingly, when she returned to Calcutta she was found seriously ill and subsequently died on 24th August 1969 in a mysterious circumstances leaving behind her two sons Asit and Arit and the only daughter Pradipta. The jewelleries and other moveables belonging to late Bharati were retained by Ajit Kumar Roy. ( 6 ) WITHIN one week of the death of the first wife Ajit Roy permanently brought Hasi Roy in his residence and started living together as husband and wife and thereafter, Hasi Roy gave birth to a male child namely Amitava Roy. The jewelleries and other moveables belonging to late Bharati were retained by Ajit Kumar Roy. ( 6 ) WITHIN one week of the death of the first wife Ajit Roy permanently brought Hasi Roy in his residence and started living together as husband and wife and thereafter, Hasi Roy gave birth to a male child namely Amitava Roy. However during his lifetime, Ajit Roy gave marriage of Pradipta Roy with Shri Amit Mitra. ( 7 ) HASI Roy treated the sons and daughter of Bharati as servants and maid-servants and threatened them to oust from the property. As a result, the older son Asit Roy was compelled to leave the family and the younger son Arit Roy was not properly educated as he is being treated like a servant in the family, whereas her own son Amitava is being maintained by Hasi Roy with good care and dignity. ( 8 ) IN view of such state of affairs, Ajit Kumar Roy became seriously ill with multiple diseases coupled with serious eye-disease and he was admitted to the Kothari Medical Centre for the treatment of eye troubles and he was under the treatment of Dr. P. C. De. Due to such attack of Glucoma, serious haemorrhage caused and in fact, Ajit Kumar Roy was living in a serious mental agony which lost his moral functioning of his brain and he was not in a position to identify persons properly and lost his normal vision. At this state of affairs with multiple ailments, the said Ajit Kumar Roy was forced to make a Will by which all the legal heirs and successors of Bharati have been illegally deprived from all the properties including jewellery and other personal assets of late Bharati Roy. ( 9 ) THE specific defence is that the Will was manufactured by Smt. Hasi Roy by fraud and coercion and by committing threat to the testator with the aid and assistance of others. Accordingly, the prayer has been made for dismissal of the application and to disallow the prayer to grant of probate of the Will. ( 10 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings, the following issues were framed:" (1) Was the Will procured by Smt. Hasi Roy by practising fraud and coercion and by committing threat to the testator as alleged in paragraph 12 of the written statement? ( 10 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings, the following issues were framed:" (1) Was the Will procured by Smt. Hasi Roy by practising fraud and coercion and by committing threat to the testator as alleged in paragraph 12 of the written statement? (2) Was the testator physically fit and mentally alert at the time of execution of the Will (3) Is the plaintiff entitled to get probate of the Will as prayed for (4) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled"decision issue Nos. 1 and 2: For the purpose of brevity and to avoid repetition both the issues are taken up together for discussion. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that the following facts are admitted as can be ascertained from the evidence adduced by the parties. (i) Late Ajit Kumar Roy was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. (ii) Ajit Kuamr Roy married Bharati Roy in the year 1956 and Pradipta, Asit and Arit were born in the wedlock. (iii) Bharati Roy died on 24th August 1969. (iv) Ajit Roy married Hasi Roy on 9. 3. 1970 and Amitava was born in the wedlock. (v) Ajit Roy executed the Will on 7. 3. 1995 in Bengali language. (vi) Ajit Roy died on 4th April 1996. (vii) The three sons Asit, Arit and Amitava gave consent to the grant of probate of the will in favour of Hasi Roy. (viii) Pradipta was born in 1963 and was married on 9th August 1987. (ix) Pradipta Roy is older than her three brothers being the first issue and her second brother Arit Roy was aged about11/2 years or 2 years at the time of death of his mother, Bharati. (x) A deed of settlement in respect of the building standing on the premises No 6a/4, B. T. Road was executed in the year 1975 giving the entire property to Hasi Roy. (xi) Ajit Kumar Roy died leaving behind moveable and immoveable property the value of which has been shown as Rs. 9,58,548. 44p. in annexure 'a' to the Affidavit of Assets. In the immoveable property at 6a, B. T. Road, there are two tenants namely, Adarsha Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Employment Exchange paying rent @rs. 10000/- and Rs. 1,21,500/- per month respectively. (xi) Ajit Kumar Roy died leaving behind moveable and immoveable property the value of which has been shown as Rs. 9,58,548. 44p. in annexure 'a' to the Affidavit of Assets. In the immoveable property at 6a, B. T. Road, there are two tenants namely, Adarsha Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Employment Exchange paying rent @rs. 10000/- and Rs. 1,21,500/- per month respectively. ( 11 ) IT is already stated above that the original Will in two pages is annexed with the application of probate. The petitioner, Hasi Roy as PW1 proved that the Will in Bengali was written by her late husband Ajit Kumar Roy who also signed the same on 7. 3. 95. The PW2, Shri Binod Behari Giri, a practising advocate of this Court also corroborated the evidence adduced by the PW 1 on the point of writing of the Will by Ajit Kumar Roy himself. The PW 2 also proved that Ajit Roy signed the Will in his presence and at his request, the PW 2 put his signature in presence of Ajit Kumar Roy. The PW 2 further proved that Prabir Kumar Mishra, another advocate and chamber junior of Ajit Kumar Roy put his signature after him as an attesting witness and thereafter, Shri Kamalesh Roy, the clerk of Ajit Kumar Roy also put his signature after the signature of Prabir Kumar Mishra. The PW 2 further deposed that after the completion of the writing and signature of the Will, Ajit Kumar Roy folded the same and put it in the envelope and handed it over to PW 2 for keeping it in safe custody and in fact, the PW 2 kept it in his locker. PW 2 further evidence that after the Shradh Ceremony of Ajit Roy, he handed over the envelope containing the Will to Hasi Roy. On identification of the Will by Hasi Roy and on proof by the attesting witness Binod Behari Giri, It was marked as Ext. 'g'. ( 12 ) BOTH the PW 1 and PW 2 were extensively cross examined and suggestion was given to both the witnesses that the Will (Ext. 'g') was written under the influence and at the instance of the petitioner Hasi Roy. It was also suggested to these two witnesses that Ajit Kumar Roy had not the mental capacity to appreciate the purport of the Will or to write the Will. 'g') was written under the influence and at the instance of the petitioner Hasi Roy. It was also suggested to these two witnesses that Ajit Kumar Roy had not the mental capacity to appreciate the purport of the Will or to write the Will. But both the witnesses demied these suggestions and the evidence of both the witness is that Ajit Kumar Roy was physically fit and mentally alert at the time of writing and execution of the Will. ( 13 ) ON behalf of the caveatrix Pradipta Mitra, attempt was made to show that Smt. Hasi Roy by practising fraud and coercion and by committing threat to Ajit Roy managed to procure the Will. It was also tried to be shown that the Will was written in Bengali only for the purpose that the petitioner Hasi Roy could read the same and understand its contents. Attempt was made on behalf of Pradipta Mitra to indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy never wrote any document in Bengali. But in spite of all such attempts it is to be mentioned that the writing of the Will by Ajit Kumar Roy himself and its execution by him has not been specifically denied in the written objection. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Affidavit affirmed by Pradipta Roy, it is specifically stated that Ajit Kumar Roy was suffering from serious eye ailments and that the petitioner Hasi Roy by fraud and coercion and by committing threat with the aid and assistance of other witnesses manufactured the Will. It is also stated that if Ajit Kumar Roy had been in normal state of condition, both mental and physical, he would not deprive the issues of the first wife. But it is to be noted that the details of practising fraud has not been made out. It is also not proved how coercion and threat with the aid and assistance of other witnesses perpetrated. It is simply alleged that if Ajit had been physically fit and mentally alert, he would not deprive the issues of the first wife. It is also tried to be stated that due to the eye trouble Ajit Kumar Roy was unable to read or write and became unfit for executing the Will. As DW 1, Pradipta Mitra tried to prove all these allegations. But ultimately failed to establish the same. It is also tried to be stated that due to the eye trouble Ajit Kumar Roy was unable to read or write and became unfit for executing the Will. As DW 1, Pradipta Mitra tried to prove all these allegations. But ultimately failed to establish the same. ( 14 ) BESIDES Pradipta Mitra (DW 1) two witnesses examined are Swapan Kumar Ghosh, brother of Hasi Roy as (DW2) and one Basudev Belel as DW3. This Basudev Belel was employed as driver of Ajit Kumar Roy. The evidence of the DW 2 and DW 3 is that Ajit Kumar Roy maintained a good relation with his first wife and that Hasi Roy was introduced with Ajit Kumar Roy by the DW 3 ( Basudev Belel ). It appears from the evidence of DW 2 and DW 3 that they were allowed to stay in the residence of Ajit Kumar Roy for some times. Though the PW 1 denied any relationship with the DW 3 and though there is no documentary evidence to show that the PW 1 had any relationship with the PW 3 but it came out in evidence that the DW 3 ( Basudeb Belel) was the driver of Ajit Kumar Roy. Similarly it is also proved that the DW 2 was the brother of the petitioner Hasi Roy and for some time, he was allowed to work as a Court Clerk under Ajit Kumar Roy. So with the help of these two witnesses the DW 1 Pradipta Mitra tried to establish that Ajit Roy was forced to execute the Will in favour of Hasi Roy. But none of these three witnesses was present at the time of writing and execution of the Will. In fact, there is nothing on record by which it can be ascertained that there was any element of coercion of Ajit Kumar Roy as regards execution of the will in the name of Hasi Roy. There is also nothing in the evidence on the basis of which it can be said that Ajit Roy was forced to write the Will at the instance of Hasi Roy. On the other hand, from the evidence of the PW 1 and PW 2 it is proved that Ajit Roy executed the will freely. The element of practising fraud on Ajit Kumar Roy is also not established. On the other hand, from the evidence of the PW 1 and PW 2 it is proved that Ajit Roy executed the will freely. The element of practising fraud on Ajit Kumar Roy is also not established. ( 15 ) MUCH strees was given by the DWs on the health condition of Ajit Kumar Roy. The witnesses tried to prove that Ajit Kumar Roy due to his eye ailment was unable to read and write. But in cross-examination, they had to admit that even few days before his death, Ajit Kumar Roy appeared before this Hon'ble Court in few cases as an advocate. The Ext 'a' series indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy appeared in different cases before this Hon'ble Court on 29. 3. 95 (Ext. A4), 4. 4. 95 (Ext. A1) 20. 12. 95 (Ext. A2) and 3. 4. 96 (Ext. A ). On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, it is also proved by the petitioner that Ajit Kumar Roy had to undergo an operation on his right eye in the year 1994 as he was suffering from gluocoma. It is also proved that Ajit Kumar Roy was using spectacles from before the operation and the last power was given to him on 16. 3. 95. It is also proved that after a successful operation, power was given on 16. 3. 95 and thereafter, Ajit Kumar Roy used to carry on his work as usual. Documents are also produced to show that the 25th marriage anniversary of Hasi Roy and Ajit Kumar Roy was performed on 10th March 1995 (Ext. D1 ). So all these documents are sufficient to indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy had no difficulty in performing his works as an advocate of this Court during the period when the Will was written. In the Will it self, this fact of eye ailment is also indicated and at the close of the Will, Ajit Kumar Roy specifically indicated that he was physically fit and mentally alert and that his right eye was out of any ailment. He also indicated that it was his last Will and he wrote it by his own hand. ( 16 ) SO on the basis of the evidence on record, there is nothing to indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy was not physically fit or mentally alert when the Will was executed. He also indicated that it was his last Will and he wrote it by his own hand. ( 16 ) SO on the basis of the evidence on record, there is nothing to indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy was not physically fit or mentally alert when the Will was executed. ( 17 ) IN this connection, it transpires from the evidence of DW 1, Pradipta Mitra that even after the execution of the Will Ajit Kumar Roy used to visit her residence by driving his own car on several occasions. This indicates that Ajit Kumar Roy was fit enough to visit different places including the residence of his daughter Ajit Kumar Roy was also aware at the time of such visits that he gave all his properties to his second wife, Hasi Roy. If Ajit Kumar Roy had no intention to give all his properties to his second wife, there is no reason why he did not opt to execute a fresh Will giving some properties to the petitioner and rest to Pradipta Mitra and two sons by the first wife. ( 18 ) IT appears from the evidence of the DW 1 that when first wife of Ajit Kumar Roy died, she was aged about 6 years and her elder brother Asit was 4 years old and the youngest brother Arit was 1 or 2 years old. It was clarified by the PW 1 as well as DW 1 that these children by the First wife was looked after by Hasi Roy whom Ajit Kumar Roy married for the second time. From the Affidavit of Pradipta Mitra, it appears that she spoke about the illicit and immoral relationship between his father and Hasi Roy during the lifetime of the first wife and subsequently, spoke about the joint living of Hasi Roy and Ajit Kumar Roy and the birth of the youngest son Amitava. But it is nowhere indicated that his father married Hasi Roy for the Second time. From the affidavit of Pradipta Mitra it is sufficiently clear that she developed a strained relationship with Hasi Roy after the incident of 1988 which was the birthday of Pradipta Mitra. But it is nowhere indicated that his father married Hasi Roy for the Second time. From the affidavit of Pradipta Mitra it is sufficiently clear that she developed a strained relationship with Hasi Roy after the incident of 1988 which was the birthday of Pradipta Mitra. Hasi Roy invited her to celebrate the birthday but as Pradipta did not come on time, there was exchange of hot words after which Pradipta stopped visiting her father's place, and she again visited her father's place on the date of death of Ajit Kumar Roy. Thus from 17th April 1988 till 4th April 1996, Pradipta Mitra did not visit her father's place and from her evidence it is sufficiently clear that she was unaware of the state of affairs prevailing during that period in her father's place. ( 19 ) PRADIPTA Mitra however tried to say that her elder brother Asit being disgusted with the petitioner, Hasi Roy left the residence and started living elsewhere. But from her cross-examination it is established that till the Higher Secondary examination the said elder brother Asit used to stay in the family of Hasi Roy and thereafter, he went to North Bengal for completing his studies and thereafter again, stayed with his mother Hasi Roy. Thereafter Asit got a job and shifted to Bangalore and thereafter to Jalgaon. The evidence further clarifies that the elder brother regularly wrote letter to his mother Hasi Roy and she visited his place of work on several occasions. So from the evidence of Pradipta Mitra it cannot be said that the elder brother had any ill-felling for the step-mother. On the other hand, the evidence on record is sufficient to indicate that the elder brother Asit has a very cordial relationship with his step-mother. Probably due to this reason he gave a consent to the grant of probate of the Will in favour of Hasi Roy. ( 20 ) THE cordial relationship with the second son Arit with the step-mother Hasi Roy is also established and it is clear that all necessary steps were taken to establish the said second son Arit in his life. Evidence is also on record to show that during the lifetime of Ajit Kumar Roy, the daughter Pradipta Mitra alongwith the three sons and Hasi Roy regularly visited different places on tour. Evidence is also on record to show that during the lifetime of Ajit Kumar Roy, the daughter Pradipta Mitra alongwith the three sons and Hasi Roy regularly visited different places on tour. Pradipta tried to explain that she was taken during these tours for the purpose of serving the brothers as a maid-servant. But the evidence on record also disproved this allegation and it is established that Pradipta Mitra was looked after properly and she was given proper education and thereafter, her marriage was solemnised at the insistence of the step-mother Hasi Roy. Excepting the incident of 17th April 1988, Pradipta Mitra failed to indicate any other incident in support of the claim that she was ill-treated by her step-mother. On the other hand, there is indication that immediately after the marriage of Pradipta, she started changing her mind and ultimately, gave rise to the breach in the mind on the day of her birthday celebration in 1988. Practically this ill-feeling led Pradipta not to disclose the marriage of Hasi Roy with her father Ajit Kumar Roy. ( 21 ) IT is already stated above that Pradipta was not aware of the incident of state of affairs prevailing in the family of Ajit Kumar Roy during the period from 17th April 1988 till the death of Ajit Kumar Roy on 4th April 1996 and accordingly, she had no occasion to see how and when the Will was executed. The stories tried to be introduced in course of her evidence were not indicated in the pleadings not the PW 1 was confronted with those facts and circumstances. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on those stories made out by Pradipta Mitra in her evidence and tried to be corroborated by the DW 1 and DW 3. On the other hand, from the evidence of DW 2 and DW 3 it is sufficiently clear that they were hostile to the family of Hasi Roy and practically, their ill-felling with her forced them to give evidence against their close relative Hasi Roy. Be that as it may, excepting few uncorroborated instances these two witnesses failed to throw any light on the assumption of Pradipta Mitra as regards exercising of force on Ajit Kumar Roy by Hasi Roy as regards execution of the Will. Be that as it may, excepting few uncorroborated instances these two witnesses failed to throw any light on the assumption of Pradipta Mitra as regards exercising of force on Ajit Kumar Roy by Hasi Roy as regards execution of the Will. ( 22 ) PRADIPTA Mitra, DW 1, tried to introduce certain facts to show that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Amongst such suspicious circumstances, her first attack is on the writing of the Will in Bengali. The second attack is with regard to the ill-health of the testator at the time of execution of the Will and the third attack is the bequest of the entire property in favour of the second wife, Hasi Roy depriving the daughter Pradipta and the two sons by the first wife of Ajit Kumar Roy. The fourth attack is that the Will was out come of undue influence, fraud and pressure exerted on Ajit Kumar Roy by his second wife, Hasi Roy. ( 23 ) IT is a settled principle of law that the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicious to the entire satisfaction of the Court. The Rule is based upon sound judicial principles and on grounds of public policy. It is also a principle of law that if the bequest in a Will appears to be unnatural, the Court has to scrutinise the evidence in support of execution of the Will with a greater degree of care than usual. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2236 (Sushila Devi v Krishna Kumar ). But in the said decision it was also observed that if the signature of the testator is found to be genuine and if it is found that the Will was duly executed the Will deserves to be probated notwithstanding the fact the most of the property has been bequeathed to the son and the husband of the deceased daughter to the exclusion of the only surviving daughter. In AIR 1990 Supreme Court 396 (Kalyan Singh v Smt. Chooti) the principle adopted is that it would be open to the Court to look into the surrounding circumstance as well as inherent improbability of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party. In AIR 1990 Supreme Court 396 (Kalyan Singh v Smt. Chooti) the principle adopted is that it would be open to the Court to look into the surrounding circumstance as well as inherent improbability of the case to reach a proper conclusion on the nature of the evidence adduced by the party. ( 24 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1960 Calcutta 551 (Ajit Chandra Majumder v Akhil Chandra Majumder) in support of the contention that the law makes a great presumption in favour of the genuineness of a holograph Will for the very good reason that the mind of the testator in physically writing out his own Will is more apparent in a holograph Will than where his signature alone appears to either a typed script or to a script written by somebody else. It is rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that Ajit Roy was renowed legal practitioner of this Court and the Will written out by his own Will and hand gives rise to a great presumption in favour of the genuineness of the Will. It is already discussed above that if any kind of pressure or undue influence was excepted on the testator by the second wife Hasi Roy, there was no reason why a fresh Will was not executed. So the first point raised as regards the writing of the Will in Behgali practically negates the objection raised by the defendant. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the defendant to show that Ajit Roy was not in the habit of writing Bengali Deeds. But there is nothing in the evidence to show that Ajit Roy was competent to write any Bengali Deed. So practically there is no basis of such suspicion. Accordingly the first attack has no force. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the defendant to show that Ajit Roy was not in the habit of writing Bengali Deeds. But there is nothing in the evidence to show that Ajit Roy was competent to write any Bengali Deed. So practically there is no basis of such suspicion. Accordingly the first attack has no force. ( 25 ) IN this connection, the learned counsel for the plaintiff also placed reliance in a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1955 Supreme Court 363 (Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta) in support of the contention that when it has been proved that a Will has been executed with due solemnities by a person of competent understanding and apparently a free agent, the burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence is on the party who alleges it. While discussing on the point of undue influence, Their Lordships further viewed :-"it is elementary law that it is not every influence which is brought to bear on a testator that can be characterised as "undue". It is open to a person to plead his case before the testator and to persuade him to make a disposition in his favour. And if the testator retains his mental capacity, and there is no element of fraud or coercion-it has often been observed that undue influence may in the last analysis be brought under one or the other of these two categories-the Will can not be attacked on the ground of undue influence. " ( 26 ) IN section 61 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 it is enacted that:-"a Will or any part of a will, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity as takes away the free agency of the testator, is void. "illustration (vii) to the section runs as follows :"a, being in such a state of health as to be capable of exercising his own judgment and volition. B uses urgent intercession and persuasion with him to induce him to make a Will of a certain purport. "illustration (vii) to the section runs as follows :"a, being in such a state of health as to be capable of exercising his own judgment and volition. B uses urgent intercession and persuasion with him to induce him to make a Will of a certain purport. A, in consequence of the intercession and persuasion, but in the free exercise of his judgment and volition, makes his Will in the manner recommended by B. The Will is not rendered invalid by the intercession and persuasion of B. " ( 27 ) FROM the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff it is sufficiently clear that the testator was physically fit and mentally alert and even on the day before his death he appeared in a case pending before this Court. The PW 1 Pradipta also admitted that even after his eye operation, Ajit Roy used to visit her place by driving his own car and he also attended the Court regularly. The possession of mental faculty of Ajit Roy during that period has not been disputed. There is also no proof that Hasi Roy actually did anything which would have affected the free exercise by the testator of his volition. It is a holograph Will and it transpires from the evidence of the PW 2 that the testator himself made all arrangements for its writing and execution and thereafter, handed over the Will to PW 2, another practising advocate of this Court for safe custody. The PW 2 in his turn handed over the Will to PW 1 Hasi Roy after the Shradh Ceremony of Ajit Roy. So there is nothing in the evidence to show or indicate as to when the undue influence was exercised by Hasi Roy on the testator. In fact, there is nothing in the evidence to show that Hasi Roy ever attempted to have the Will executed in her favour. So the story as raised by the defendant as regards fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. has no basis whatsoever. ( 28 ) IN this connexion, it is to be mentioned that the testator made certain corrections in the holograph Will and those corrections were initialled by him. So the story as raised by the defendant as regards fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. has no basis whatsoever. ( 28 ) IN this connexion, it is to be mentioned that the testator made certain corrections in the holograph Will and those corrections were initialled by him. This indicates that the testator was cautious about the wtiting of the Will and on this score, the learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1967 Supreme Court 528 (M. L. Sethi v. R. P. Kapur) in support of the contention that if writing and signature proved by the testator and the corrections made therein by the testator it cannot be called to be an unnatural document. ( 29 ) IN this connexion, the learned counsel for the plaintiff rightly placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1982 Calcutta 599 (Alok Kumar Aich v. Asoke Kumar Aich) for analysing the mode of proving a Will. Their Lordships in paragraph 8 of the said judgment viewed :"it has been repeatedly held that the mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed in case of a Will by section 68 of the Succession Act. It is also settled law that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the executing of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. The propounder is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator and the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own Will. The aforesaid observations of Gajendragadkar, J, in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , has been consistently followed and applied by the Supreme Court in their later decisions (supra); Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai, AIR 1965 SC 354, Sm. Jaswant Kaur v. Sm. Amrit Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74 ). The aforesaid observations of Gajendragadkar, J, in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443 , has been consistently followed and applied by the Supreme Court in their later decisions (supra); Ramchandra Rambux v. Champabai, AIR 1965 SC 354, Sm. Jaswant Kaur v. Sm. Amrit Kaur, AIR 1977 SC 74 ). " ( 30 ) IT is already discussed above that no provision was made for Pradipta, Asit and Arit, that is the daughter and two sons by the first wife. On the other hand, the entire property of Ajit Kumar Roy has been bequeathed in favour of Hasi Roy. It also transpired in evidence that another rented house was delivered in favour of Hasi Roy long before the execution of the Will. So in fact, all the immoveable and movable properties of Ajit Kumar Roy are given to Hasi Roy, the second wife. In the will itself, it is not clarified as to why no provision was made for the children by the first wife or for the son by the second wife. But from the evidence adduced by both the parties, it is sufficiently clear that Hasi Roy, since her marriage with Ajit Roy, looked after the children by the first wife as her own children, brought them up, gave marriage of the daughter, gave education to the sons and thereafter arranged for their placement in life. It is also on record that during the lifetime of Ajit Kumar Roy all these children were taken to different tours and all the children of the first wife were treated as own children of Hasi Roy. It is also on record that the own son of Hasi Roy was equally treated with the other children by the first wife. It is also indicated hereinabove that the eldest son, Asit used to make correspondences with Hasi Roy regularly and in return, Hasi Roy also showed due care to that son. The second son Arit is also residing with Hasi Roy. None of these two sons has come forward with any grievance against Hasi Roy. On the other hand, they gave their consent for grant of probate in favour of Hasi-Roy. The second son Arit is also residing with Hasi Roy. None of these two sons has come forward with any grievance against Hasi Roy. On the other hand, they gave their consent for grant of probate in favour of Hasi-Roy. All these facts and circumstances are sufficient to indicate that Ajit Kumar Roy had full confidence on Hasi Roy and accordingly, gave all his properties to Hasi Roy undoubtedly with the expectation that the children by the first wife and also by the second wife are all safe in her hand and she would take proper care for each of them. ( 31 ) IT is equally true that Pradipta Mitra before her marriage had cordial relationship with Hasi Roy and there is nothing to show that she ever complained against the conduct of Hasi Roy. The evidence on record indicates that till 1988, Pradipta did not raise any grievance against Hasi Roy. Of course, Pradipta tried to introduce a story that Hasi Roy used to look after the children by the first wife like servant and maidservant. But it is already discussed above that such allegations are all baseless and not proved at all. On the other hand, the conduct of Pradipta after the incident of 1988 is indicative of the fact that she was misguided and opted to challenge the Will in the manner indicated hereinabove. ( 32 ) ATTEMPT was also made by Pradipta Mitra to show that the ornaments of the first wife given to Pradipta during her marriage were all kept by Ajit Kumar Roy and that those ornaments could not be given to Hasi Roy on the basis of the Will. But keeping of all these ornaments have not been proved and it is also not proved that properties not belonging to Ajit Kumar Roy were included in the Will. Practically for this reason Pradipta did not call any witness in support of her claim that the ornaments of her mother were kept by Ajit Kumar Roy and subsequently included in the Will. Whatever may be the reasons, the fact remains that Hasi Roy has not only been able to prove the bequest in her favour but she has also successfully explained the suspicious circumstances tried to be introduced in this suit. Whatever may be the reasons, the fact remains that Hasi Roy has not only been able to prove the bequest in her favour but she has also successfully explained the suspicious circumstances tried to be introduced in this suit. ( 33 ) THUS what has been discussed hereinabove, it is concluded that the Will in question was not procured by Smt. Hasi Roy by practising fraud and coercion and by committing threat to the testator as alleged in the written statement. It is also concluded that the testator was physically fit and mentally alert at the time of execution of the Will. So the Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative and the Issue No. 2 is answered in the affirmative. Issue Nos. 3 and 4 : In view of my findings in the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 above, I come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to get probate of the Will which has also been proved to be the last Will of the Testator and accordingly, the suit is liable to be decreed in terms of the prayer 'c' of the petition treated as plaint. ( 34 ) IN this connexion it is pertinent to observe from the circumstances that Pradipta was not aware that her father gave all the properties to Hasi Roy, and in expectation that her father must have made some provision for herself, she after the death of Ajit Roy, visited her father's place after 12 years. But as soon as she came to know about the purport of the Will, she stopped visiting her father's place forever and thereafter filed the instant objection challenging the Will. The evidence of Pradipta (DW 1) does not indicate that she had strained relation with Hasi Roy before the incident of 1988. On the other hand, it is also indicative of the fact that after the incident of 1988 when she was prohibited by Ajit Kumar Roy not to visit her father's place she was shocked to a great extent and in sorrow she never tried to restore the relationship. It is already discussed above that Ajit Roy knew from the core of his heart that Hasi Roy would do justice to the children like her own children, as she usually behaved with them since their childhood. It is already discussed above that Ajit Roy knew from the core of his heart that Hasi Roy would do justice to the children like her own children, as she usually behaved with them since their childhood. It is also discussed above that Ajit Kumar Roy reposed a faith on his second wife Hasi Roy and for this reason, he gave all his properties to Hasi Roy must be with an expectation that after getting the probate of the Will and after getting the bequeathed property, she would make appropriate provisions for their children including the married daughter. It can be expected that the plaintiff Hasi Roy would do justice to such faith reposed on her by her late husband. But considering the circumstances I do not saddle Pradipta with any cost of this proceeding. The Issue Nos. 3 and 4 are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff. ( 35 ) IN the result, the suit succeeds. Court Fees paid are sufficient. It is ordered that the suit be and the same is decreed in terms of prayer 'c' of the petition. The probate alongwith the Will annexed be granted to the plaintiff, Smt. Hasi Roy. Let copy of the ordering portion of this judgment, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar be handed over to the learned Advocates-on-Record of the parties at an early date. Suit succeeds